Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

ORPINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SCOTSWOOD BRIDGE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.

LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [Lords]

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Electricity Council (Pay)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Power what general directions he has now given to the Electricity Council regarding their pay policy.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): None, Sir.

Mr. Farr: Would my right hon. Friend look into the activities of the East Midlands Electricity Board, which is currently advertising for painters at rates above those agreed by the National Joint Council for the building industry and with which private employers in Leicester are finding great difficulty in competing?

Mr. Wood: I certainly promise to make inquiries into this matter, but I do not think it would be proper for me to intervene. It is a matter which is entirely proper for the organisation of the East Midlands Board.

Government Offices (Heating)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the reasons for averring, in his letter of i5th June to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, that the decision to use oil heating at the new Government offices in Dewsbury was the right one.

Mr. Wood: Because a special study of possible fuels and methods of firing showed that, in this particular case, oil firing would be substantially cheaper.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is the Minister aware of the great local concern in this matter? Is he also aware that I have a letter from the chairman of the North-Eastern Division of the National Coal Board stating that it was not consulted and was not asked to supply information on costs? How, then, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Ministry of Works' calculations were right and that its decision was right? Would he also confirm that this decision is now irrevocable and that the work has gone too far for the decision to be altered, if, in fact, it was substantiated that coal would be cheaper from the beginning?

Mr. Wood: In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I think I may give that confirmation. In regard to consultations, there have been a number of these cases, and the Ministry of Works is well aware of the kind of range of choices of fuels in which it must 'Work. It was convinced that in this case it would have been quite impossible to achieve the substantial reduction which would have been necessary in order to make coal as economical as oil.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is it the principle of the Ministry that it does not ask for tenders from the National Coal Board? Is it left entirely to the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Wood: These Consultations take place between the Ministry of Works and the National Coal Board, and the Ministry of Works is very well aware of the national interest in this matter. In this case, it did not feel that inquiries from the National Coal Board would yield a worth-while result.

Mr. Ginsburg: Would not the Minister agree that, in this case, it was very regrettable that the Ministry did not go to the National Coal Board, because the figures, as at that time, would have shown that coal would have been cheaper?

Mr. Wood: In regard to the figures, I do not think they would have shown that at that time, or that they would show it at the present time.

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the liaison between the Government Departments concerned and the National Coal Board when plans for the heating of new Government offices are considered; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. Departments concerned are aware that coal is our main indigenous fuel and that it should be used where it can do the job as cheaply as alternative fuels. Their attention has been drawn to the National Coal Board's technical sales service.

Mr. Ginsburg: Will the Minister consider making a further statement about the liaison in this field, so that, at least,

the House may know that the sort of incident which happened in my constituency does not happen again?

Mr. Wood: In view of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, I will certainly make inquiries to see that the machinery, which I am convinced works perfectly well, does not make any mistakes in the future.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to ensure that this information is available to other Government Departments, and that, in fact, the machinery is working well, because there is a widespread suspicion that the machinery is not working well? Is he also aware that the technical officers who are advising on the erection of new buildings and on heating seem to have a very definite bias in favour of other fuels? Will he be quite sure that Government Departments are paying attention to the advantages of using coal?

Mr. Wood: I will certainly examine the matter, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is the only complaint that has come to me about this matter.

Nuclear Fuel (Fissile Materials)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Power to what extent the future production of special fissile materials from nuclear reactors owned by, or coming into the ownership of, the Central Electricity Generating Board is earmarked for defence purposes.

Mr. Wood: Under the arrangements between the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Atomic Energy Authority, nuclear fuel, after irradiation in the reactors at nuclear power stations, is returned to the Authority, who alone are empowered to extract special fissile materials from it.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how, if we enter Euratom, it will become possible to distinguish between fissile materials such as plutonium, which are reserved for defence purposes, and those which are reserved for peaceful purposes, such as for the fast breeder reactors, in view of the fact that the Agency will become the sole owners of these special fissile materials?

Mr. Wood: The negotiations will have to be very much further advanced before I could answer the hon. Gentleman's question. In any event, I think that the information is probably secret and, there-fore, I should not be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question anyhow.

Mr. Warbey: That reply is nonsense. Why are we proposing to enter Euratom at all? If we go in, the Government will have to disclose its stocks of special fissile materials—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can we get nearer to the interrogatory in this speech?

Mr. Warbey: How do the Government propose to comply with the articles of the Euratom Treaty which require that we shall make over to the Euratom Agency the ownership of special fissile materials?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement of my right hon. Friend. I think the negotiations will have to be very much further advanced before we can reach any conclusion about these matters.

Colvilles Ltd. (Loan)

Sir P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Power if his review of the amount of the loan to Colvilles Ltd. has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. Since I last reported on this matter to the House a year ago, the liquid position of the company has been adversely affected by changes in the state of trade and increases in costs outside its own control. The company has made its own arrangements to provide additional finance, but I am satisfied that the company needs the assurance that it can draw on the Government loan up to a maximum of £50 million, in accordance with the original agreement. I have therefore agreed that the maximum of the loan should be restored to the original figure of £50 million.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inform the House what is the rate of interest at the moment and Whether it is proposed to alter the rate of interest paid by Colvilles for the money that it is getting from the Government?

Mr. Wood: There has been no suggestion that the rate of interest should be altered. The rate of interest is all provided for in the original agreement. All I am saying is that the original agreement should be carried out to the full.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that an additional burden has been imposed upon Colvilles to the tune of about £900,000 a year by the new differential coal price policy that has been imposed upon Scotland?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman has pointed this out to me in the past, and I have agreed that there is an extra burden placed on the company in this way. I have also pointed out to him that not only the steel industry's future is important but also the viability of the coal industry in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Scottish Coalfields

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the estimated manpower position in the Scottish coalfields over the next five years, with special reference to the number of miners who will need to transfer to mines in England.

Mr. Wood: I cannot add to the statement issued by the National Coal Board on 11th July.

Mr. Hamilton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that considerable numbers of miners in Scotland will either have to leave the industry or, if they want to stay in it, transfer to England? Will he also confirm that, if that is so, those miners will suffer a considerable reduction in wages, as well as being deprived of a normal domestic life, in view of the great housing shortage in the areas to which they will be directed?

Mr. Wood: I should like to give the hon. Gentleman as much information as I can, but, as I have indicated, the probabilities and possibilities of the future make it very difficult for me to be specific. Even if it were the case that all the pits in category B and category C were to close, the pits in category A will need


more manpower, and, with the national wastage, there will be more jobs in future than the number of displaced miners in all the B and C category pits. It is very difficult indeed at this point to forecast what is likely to be the movement of manpower from the B and C category pits, either into other pits or into England.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the right horn. Gentleman aware that even though the manpower increases in the category A pits to the extent which the Divisional Coal Board anticipate, that increase in manpower will almost inevitably be found from collieries adjacent to those developing collieries and from the recruitment of young miners, which must never be stopped if the industry is to live? Is he aware that, in these circumstances, 100 miners who will become redundant in pits which are to be closed will be unemployed if they continue to live in the areas where they are now living; and that, if they are transferred to other pits, they will clearly have to leave the communities in which they now live?

Mr. Wood: I have tried to give the hon. Gentleman the full picture. This is certainly a grave problem, particularly in certain localities, and these are the problems on which the attention of the House was concentrated in the recent debate, and in which the Government through the Local Employment Act, are anxious and very ready to help.

Mr. A. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Coal Board is already making plans for the transfer of redundant miners from Scotland? If the right hon. Gentleman has no idea of the number coming from Scotland, how can the Board complete its plans for the transfer of these men to another coalfield?

Mr. Wood: What I understand the National Coal Board is anxious to do is to re-employ the displaced miners as economically and usefully as possible. It has, therefore, suggested that a number of jobs could be filled in England, but it is still uncertain how many of these offers will be taken up.

National Coal Board (Finance)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power if he is yet in a position to

make a statement on the financial reorganisation of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Eden: asked the Minister of Power whether his review of the National Coal Board's long-term prospects has now been completed; and whether he will make a statement.

Colonel Lancaster: asked the Minister of Power whether he has now agreed with the National Coal Board its financial target in accordance with the policy outlined in Command Paper No. 1337.

Mr. Wood: I have agreed with the Board that from 1963 its target should be to break even, after paying interest and making proper provision for depreciation. This will include £10 million a year to help cover the difference between depreciation at historic and replacement cost. This is a comparatively modest objective, but the industry has special difficulties, and its achievement will largely depend on the Board's maintaining the coal market around its present size. The targets will be reviewed each year in the light of events inside and outside the industry.
It will also depend on the application of the Board's policies for improving the health of the industry and adapting it to Changing circumstances. The Board aims to keep down costs and raise productivity by mechanisation and the concentration of working, by directing new investment mainly towards making existing capacity more profitable; and by closing pits with no prospect of covering their operating costs. As these pits close and the new or reconstructed pits are fully manned, a big redeployment of men will be necessary, mainly within the industry, and productivity should rise further. The Government endorse these policies, but recognise the social implications of the Board's closures policy. They are ready to play their part in encouraging new industries and helping to redeploy labour.
The Board and I have considered the question of capital reconstruction. The debts of the industry cannot be simply extinguished: they could only be transferred—to the taxpayer. Capital reconstruction is no substitute for vigorous efforts—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it reasonable to hon.


Members on both sides of the House who take the trouble to put down Parliamentary Questions in the hope of getting oral replies that Ministerial answers should be of such inordinate length? Could not this reply have taken the form of a statement by your leave at the end of Questions in reply to the three Questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That could have been done. But I endeavour to encourage brevity on the part of hon. Members asking Questions and Minister answering them.

Mr. Nabarro: This reply is not very brief.

Mr. Wood: I apologise for the length of this answer. I am trying to answer three Questions. I am sorry if I have incurred the wrath of my hon. Friend, but I thought that I would incur the wrath of other Members if I sought to answer these Questions in the form of a statement after Questions.
I was saying that capital reconstruction is no substitute for vigorous efforts to make the industry viable and competitive. Success in the Board's policies and the fructification of large investment in coalmining capacity over the past years should help secure a better relationship between capital and earnings. The Board and I have agreed that capital reconstruction is not appropriate in the midst of these developments.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that over the years the interest burden has been quite intolerable, that in fact operating profits have been substantial but have been wiped out because of these inordinate interest charges? When will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government wake up to the fact that unless and until this financial reconstruction takes place the Coal Board will for ever be in the kind of difficulties that it is in at the moment? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Ministry of Transport to see whether a solution similar to the one that has been arrived at with British Railways could be applied equally to the coal mines?

Mr. Wood: The Government have certainly awakened to this fact, and we have been considering the matter with the National Coal Board. There is no disagreement between that Board and

the Government, but we think this is not the appropriate time to make a capital reconstruction. It would be wrong to look at certain parts of the capital. The whole capital must be looked at. As I said in my answer, it is important to bring about a better relationship between the Board's whole capital and the earnings of that capital. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend say for how long a period forward the closure of pits will continue, and, in the light of the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal at Luxembourg on 17th July, can he say to what extent our participation in a common European energy policy is likely to affect the Coal Board's hopes of breaking even?

Mr. Wood: As to the period during which closures will take place, I have no doubt that closures, which have always taken place as pits have become exhausted in the past, will continue as far ahead as we can see into the future as pits become exhausted.
So far as the European Coal and Steel Community is concerned, if we joined the Community it would certainly lead to greater freedom in coal trade between us and other members of the Community. It would also give us an opportunity to discuss with other members of the Community a common energy policy. It is too early for me to pronounce on the likely result of those discussions.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the financial objective which my right hon. Friend has just explained, would he confirm that the assurances he gave me a few months ago, to the effect that the new investment of the National Coal Board at the rate of between £90 million and £100 million per annum would be found as to three-quarters from its own resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is too long."]—and the remainder from new borrowings?

Mr. Wood: I do not complain at the length of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I think he has probably got the figures correct. I should like to check up and communicate with him.

Smokeless Fuels (Moisture Content)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Power when he expects to receive the


report from the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council on the excessive moisture content in smokeless fuels.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): As the Council may need several meetings to consider this important problem, I cannot say when its report will be made.

Mr. Longden: If the Council should fail to suggest an effective remedy for these very justified complaints, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to do so, for example by insisting upon some form of British Standard to control quality and prevent exploitation? Meanwhile, will he give the widest publicity to all the means now open to consumers for obtaining redress?

Mr. Peyton: Certainly. I am very anxious that consumers should have all possible knowledge of the ways in which they can obtain redress. As I said from this Box last week, one of the best ways is for them to complain and to press their complaints upon merchants. I am sure my hon. Friend will remember that Lady Burton is the chairman of the Council and that when she was a Member of this House she carried the standard unflaggingly on behalf of consumers. I am sure she will not cease to do that now. I cannot possibly think that she will fail.

Miners (Output per man shift)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Power, if he will state the percentage increase in the output per man shift in the coal mining industry for the first six months of 1962 in comparison with the same period of 1961.

Mr. Wood: 8·2 per cent.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this magnificent performance merits praise from this House and that that praise ought to be conveyed to every member of the mining fraternity, both management and work people? Does he not also agree that many of the statements by his hon. Friends which are denigratory of the coal mining industry and which are designed to create the impression among the public that the industry is inefficient, ought not to lie in the mouths of those Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has no responsibility for expressing opinions about the observations of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Wood: I think this performance merits great praise and I have taken other opportunities in the past to say so. My hon. Friends are just as anxious as I am to see this industry viable and competitive, and I believe they have confidence in the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Pit Closures

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Power if the will consider, in conjunction with the chairman of the National Coal Board, the provision of a Government subsidy for the keeping open of pits until alternative industry is available.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. The Board hopes to offer work in other pits to the great majority of miners affected by colliery closures, and the Government will use its powers under the Local Employment Act to attract industry to needy areas.

Miss Herbison: Since the Minister and, I take it, the Government are unwilling to do anything about subsidising these pits until alternative industry is provided, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that those areas that have already been very badly hit by pit closures do not take any comfort from his telling us today that they will be helped by the Local Employment Act? Can he give us an assurance that the areas which have already been badly hit, and the same areas which are going to be very seriously hit by further pit closures, will have at least one of these industrial sites and advance factories built on them? Surely that is as little as the Ministry of Power can do with this disastrous policy in Scotland?

Mr. Wood: I do not wart to avoid any part of the hon. Lady's Question, but part of it should certainly be properly directed elsewhere. I must say that, in the past, the National Coal Board has been eminently successful in placing those miners who have been displaced from the pits that have shut. As to the future, the hon. Lady should realise that I am as anxious as she is to see that these miners are re-employed in new work, either in other pits or in


new industry. In fact, what she is asking is that no pits should be dosed unitil there is actual work nearby for the miner to go to. If that principle were applied all round, we should have a completely static society in which no one moved from one job to another.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power when considering the programme for the closure of pits in Scotland, what discussions (he had with the National Coal Board regarding its policy of importing coal from England into Scotland.

Mr. Wood: The arrangement of supplies is a matter for the National Coal Board. I have had no discussions with the Board on coal traffic between England and Scotland.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that a very substantial quantity of coal is regularly sent from England to Scotland? Further, as the size of the Scottish coalfield in future is to depend on the sale of Scottish coal, is it not the fact that the more coal that is sent from England to Scotland the smaller will the Scottish coalfield be?

Mr. Wood: The traffic in coal between England and Scotland is two-way traffic. Rather more goes north than comes south, but it is two-way traffic. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the selection of the sources of supply is properly one for the National Coal Board's own administration, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of Lord Robens.

Mr. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend say what is to be Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning the general picture of the importation of coal into this country?

Mr. Wood: I do not know whether that arises out of this Question, but if my hon. Friend will put down a Question about imports I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Baxter: Is the Minister aware that most of the coal being imported into Scotland is coking coal, and that the Coal Board started the sinking of a pit between Airth and Plean in the Forth area, to cost in the region of £1 million; and that the work has been stopped? The project was intended to get down to

the only coking seams in Scotland. When is that new pit to be completed?

Mr. Wood: That seems to be a question for the Board, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his premise that most of the coal imported into Scotland is coking coal. There is quite a tonnage of house coal, and quite a considerable tonnage of coal for British Railways. But I will certainly ask the Board to look into the point he has raised.

Northern Ireland Imports (Scottish Coals)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power what proportion of British coal being imported into Northern Ireland is now coming from the Scottish coalfield.

Mr. Wood: About a quarter.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Minister bear in mind that at the end of 1959 there was a sudden switch in policy on exports of coal from Ayrshire to Northern Ireland; and that that was very detrimental to Ayrshire and to Scotland? Since the position is now so black in Scotland, will the night hon. Gentleman reverse that policy, or have it reversed, in order that Ayrshire, or Scotland, can recover what was its long-established traditional market?

Mr. Wood: I have certainly been made well aware of the change that is taking place, but, again, that is a matter for the Board, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. I can certainly discuss it with the Board, but the Board must pay attention to the needs and wishes of consumers. At the same time, it must take into account the costs of production in the particular source of supply. It cannot ignore those factors in deciding from which source it will supply Northern Ireland.

Sir T. Moore: Can my right toon. Friend say—although I do not think that he can—why, just before the 1959 General Election, the National Coal Board announced that no more Ayrshire coal would be exported to Northern Ireland, and thereby lost me 2,000 votes? That announcement has since been forgotten, but why announce something that it was apparently not intended to carry out and so confuse the whole electorate about the Board's ideas?

Mr. Wood: Much as I should like to help my hon. Friend, he is quite right in his surmise—I cannot answer his question. However, I will make inquires and write to him about it.

Coal (Chemical Uses)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power what discoveries on the chemical uses of coal have been made in Great Britain since the publication of the Wilson Report.

Mr. Wood: No outstanding discoveries have taken place but improvements in the use of coal products are continually being made by the National Coal Board, the Coal Tar Research Association, the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and others.

Mr. Dalyell: Cam the Minister confirm that he is keeping abreast of the latest scientific discoveries and of their industrial application?

Mr. Wood: I certainly feel that there is sufficient inquiry going on in these matters not to miss any important possibility.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the need to develop the chemical uses of coal, he will introduce legislation to enable the National Coal Board to operate plants designed to exploit modern discoveries in this field.

Mr. Peyton: The National Coal Board already has these powers under subsection 2 (1) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Water Supplies (Fluoridation)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps towards the provision of fluoride in the drinking water supplies in areas where the natural concentration is low, in view of the results achieved in certain areas of the country and the resultant benefit to health.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take following his recent report on the experiments on the fluoridation of water to prevent dental decay.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what action he now proposes to take to prevent dental decay by adding fluoride to drinking water.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I would refer the hon. Members to my (reply of 9th July to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

Mr. Lubbock: When the Minister examines the report he has received, will he consider providing financial assistance to local authorities which are prepared to introduce fluoridation of their water supplies; bearing in mind that the cost would be very low and that the Ministry of Health would save large sums of money on the treatment of dental decay?

Mr. Powell: The fact that the cost would be very How can be argued both ways, but this is obviously one of the points in question.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that he has been ultra-cautious in taking such a long time to reach a decision, but now that the Report has come out, will he press on with the utmost speed so as to get action on the results of the experiments? Will he also make it known to local authorities that there is no value in stannous fluoride being used in toothpaste; that the real answer lies in the fluoridation of water and not in toothpaste?

Mr. Powell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's second point arises on this Question. As to the first point, this report has only recently appeared. It deads with a very important matter, and I think it right that time should be spent in giving it full consideration.

Mr. Lipton: As the Government find it almost impossible to provide adequate school dental services, would it not be simpler, quicker and cheaper to adopt the recommendation of the Committee with regard to fluoridation than to allow the situation to drift?

Mr. Powell: I do not think that this would obviate the importance of the school health service, but it is obviously a point in the matter.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the doubts


about this matter are not confined to eccentric opponents of the proposal, but that it is a subject of very widespread importance and most people will be very grateful to him if he takes the utmost care in examining it before reaching a decision that will affect so many people?

Mr. Powell: I agree entirely about the importance of this point.

Doctors (Emigration)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the consideration of methods of estimating the scale of net emigration of doctors from Great Britain; and to what extent the National Health Service has been affected by the departure of doctors for Saskatchewan in particular.

Mr. Powell: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent statement. Not appreciably.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that the events in Saskatchewan, in particular, are being followed with close interest in this country, and will he give the Canadian Government all the encouragement he can by demonstrating to them that had the United Kingdom Government at the time of the introduction of the Health Service yielded to the same kind of pressure we might have been without a Health Service here?

Mr. Powell: I do not think that that in any way arises on this Question.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: In order to get a fair analysis on the Question, would my right hon. Friend also give the figures of the Commonwealth and alien doctors who are working in the Health Service here?

Mr. Powell: Not without notice, but I will write to my right hon. Friend giving the figures. They are undoubtedly an important element in the staffing of the hospital service, but the British staffing of the hospital service has also increased, and is steadily increasing.

Mr. K. Robinson: Can the Minister be a little more forthcoming in reply to the first half of my hon. Friend's Question? Many of us have read his speech, but we should like to know what steps he is taking to find out the figures of emigration, and what progress he has made so far.

Mr. Powell: The evidence is such as to make it clear that the scale of emigration is not a serious factor in the staffing of the Health Service.

Diabetes

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Health what consideration he is giving to combining tests in radiological mobile units for detection of chest ailments with appropriate tests for detection of excessive blood sugar and similar diabetic symptoms; and how he is increasing facilities for diabetic diagnosis.

Mr. Powell: It is undesirable to link the two procedures. There is no lack of facilities for diagnosis.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the evidently large number of undiagnosed diabetics in this country today, which are said to run to several hundreds of thousands, represents a cause of a great deal of alarm? As the Americans appear to be ahead of us in the mass diagnosis of this disease, cannot my right hon. Friend say what additional steps are being advised to local health authorities to diagnose it more accurately and on a wider scale?

Mr. Powell: I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend referred, but if we were to combine mass diagnosis of diabetes with mass radiography I am afraid that the result would be that we should reduce the very important scale of the resort to mass radiography. For the present, it is right that the available facilities—very full facilities—should be used by and through the general practitioner service.

Mr. W. Griffiths: In addition to the undetected cases referred to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), has the Minister's attention been drawn to a survey of diagnostic procedures carried out some months ago in Scottish hospitals which revealed a high percentage—40 per cent.—of wrong diagnosis? In view of the undetected cases and the alarmingly high percentage of wrong diagnosis, surely the Minister ought to have a look at this very important matter?

Mr. Powell: If this was in Scottish hospitals, obviously I must not comment on the individual point, but I do not


think that mass diagnosis would meet the difficulty, if it exists, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

New Drugs

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now take the necessary powers to set up a statutory authority, comparable with the food and drugs administration in the United States, to supervise the clinical trials of new drugs and to authorise their marketing and prescription.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will set up a committee to consider the avoidable risks attendant on the introduction of new drugs within the National Health Service, the desirability of establishing standards for, and independent assessment or control of, clinical trials, and to make recommendations.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dangers to health which have been experienced by the use of some new drugs; and what precautions he is taking to ensure that no new drugs shall be used without adequate research into their potential danger.

Mr. Powell: I am seeking advice through my Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the question of the testing of new drugs generally.

Mr. Edelman: I welcome the fact that the Minister is at last going to take some action, but will he bear in mind that the essentials for an authority of this kind is that it should be independent, impartial and free from undue commercial or even professional pressure? In these circumstances, will he bear in mind that the United States Food and Drugs Authority has a long and efficient experience of acting as a supervisory body over the marketing and prescription of drugs and was thus able to avoid the tragedy which has recently taken place from the use of thalidomide?

Mr. Powell: I would not accept the inference in the hon. Gentleman's last words, but I would agree that American experience is a very useful and interesting fact in what is a very big subject. Nevertheless, I think it is right to put on record that both the profession and

the manufacturers have exercised their responsibilities to the full.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the very serious public concern about recent tragic events, his announcement today will be very welcome? Is he further aware that it is very important if a committee of this kind is set up, which we hope it will be, that it shall be an official committee with public accountability to the House and it will not be sufficient to leave the assessment of clinical tests and control of new drugs either to the medical profession or the pharmaceutical industry, or both?

Mr. Powell: It would obviously be premature for me to comment on that until I have received the advice that I mentioned I am seeking.

Sir B. Janner: I appreciate the very important statement the Minister has made. Has he any idea how long it will be before such a committee is set up, in view of the very serious position with regard to some drugs and the consequences which have ensued? As there was no supervision, in the sense of a committee of this sort investigating the drugs, what is he prepared to do about the tragic results which have flowed from the use of drugs which have not been examined in this way? Will he arrange for compensation to be paid to these people?

Mr. Powell: That is an entirely separate question which the hon. Gentleman must table. I cannot give any time for the receipt of the advice which I have mentioned I intend to call for. I again emphasise that there is no reason to suppose that either the manufacturers or the profession are not fulfilling their responsibilities absolutely fully.

Mr. J. Howard: Before my hon. Friend sets up a committee on the wider powers, will he bear in mind that the processes of the courts can be used to discourage incidents of this sort, and will he allow the normal processes of the law to act as a safeguard?

Mr. Powell: I have not taken the decision that my hon. Friend refers to. I think I must await advice on this whole question.

Thalidomide

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is further evidence from the Continent of children being born with congenital deformities to mothers who have taken the sedative thalidomide and that during 1960 and 1961 500 infants were born in this country with malformations which may be attributable to this drug; and whether he will now make arrangements for clinical studies of other sedatives in order to ascertain whether any connection exists between abnormal births and the use of such sedatives.

Mr. Powell: I am aware of this evidence. I am informed that research has not suggested any connection of abnormal births with other sedatives.

Mr. Edelman: Is not the tragedy of the thalidomide babies a great national disaster, greater in its ramifications than any single train accident in the history of this country, for example? In these circumstances, is it not premature to draw a veil over the whole matter while there are many aspects of it which have not been cleared up? For example, why during 1960 and 1961, when there was a sharp increase in the number of abnormal births not only on the Continent but in this country also, was no correlation observed or investigated between the increase in the number of abnormal births and the increased use of sedatives, particularly thalidomide? In these circumstances, does not the matter call for a committee of investigation to go into the whole matter to find out why during the whole of this period no one apparently was investigating the increased incidence of abnormal births in this country? Did the Minister himself take any action? If not, will he do something about it?

Mr. Powell: I am not anxious to draw a veil over any aspect of this matter, although I shall not vie with the hon. Member in expressions about the feelings which will be in the minds of all of us in contemplating it. I can only answer the Questions put to me. I was asked if I would arrange for clinical studies to see whether other sedatives may be involved. I have told the hon. Member that studies do not indicate that other sedatives are involved.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great public concern about what he is prepared to do in the cases of the deformed children who have already been born? Will he look into this associated matter about the provision of hospital schools for limbless babies, of which I understand there are only two with a very limited number of beds? Since they will be quite incapable of meeting the new demand, will the Minister look into the possibility of extending the provision?

Mr. Powell: My advice is that the resources of the Health Service should be fully adequate for meeting all the health service needs—all those within the responsibility of my Department—which may be involved in the case of these limbless babies.

Sir H. Linstead: While I am quite certain that we have not found the right answer to the question of testing new drugs, has my right hon. Friend toad any medical advice indicating that it would have been possible to have discovered the effects that thalidomide has bad before these tragedies had taken place?

Mr. Powell: It is always impossible to answer a "might have been" with complete certainty, but I think it right to say that there is no machinery which could guarantee to detect in advance all the long-term side effects of a drug.

Mr. Snow: Are these deformities notifiable by hospital services to local health authorities? In the case of the American experience, is it not a fact that the one physician who put a warning light up about this drug has been recommended for a decoration? Is this not proof that there is some prima facie case of danger to people who take this drug?

Mr. Powell: I have no information on the second point. If the hon. Member will put down a Question on the first point, I shall answer it.

Residential Homes (Staff)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Health if he will introduce legislation to give persons in charge of residential homes established under Section 21 (1) (a) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, a right of appeal to him


in the event of their dismissal from employment, in view of the fact that he already possesses power to authorise inspection of such homes under Section 39 of that Act.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have sent particulars of the dismissal of Miss Robinson from one of these homes in Newcastle? In view of the circumstances of that dismissal and that he has power to order inspection of these homes, does not my right hon. Friend think that in common justice these people should have some right of appeal to him?

Mr. Powell: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the fact that I have the right and duty to inspect homes to see whether they are properly conducted is not relevant to this Question. The Question asks whether I should take power to interfere between a local authority as employer and its employees. My answer to that question is, "No, Sir."

Cancer (Registration)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health if his hope, expressed in circular HM (61) 108 of 22nd November, 1961, that by 30th June, 1962, registration of all cancer cases in hospitals would be complete, has been fulfilled.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): My right hon. Friend has called for this information by the end of this month.

Mr. Boyden: Why should it take eight months to provide this very important information? If it must take eight months, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that by the end of next month these figures will be complete and there will be an adequate number of statisticians employed and the appropriate authorities to make adequate use of them?

Mr. Braine: I regret that the information has been coming in somewhat slower than we expected, but my right hon. Friend expressed the hope in the hospital memorandum which was circulated that by 30th June registration of cancer cases in hospital should be complete and that regional boards and boards of governors would then be able

to send us by 31st July further particulars of arrangements. I do not think there is an undue delay. When the information has been received we can judge what coverage is being obtained.

Mr. Boyden: Is not this a ridiculous time to take considering that the circular was in most urgent terms?

Dentists

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the present shortage of dental services in the country, and on the steps he proposes to take to meet the situation.

Mr. Powell: The volume of dental treatments given continues to rise rapidly. This rise should continue as the number of dentists qualifying continues to increase.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that there is still a very considerable shortage and that according to the arrangements he has made at present it will take seven years before sufficient dental surgeons will be available? Is he aware that there is considerable disappointment in regard to the arrangement being made for the payment of dentists and that the more they organise their practices the less they receive per person? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will look into the whole matter again to see what can be done?

Mr. Powell: I do not accept the implication of what the hon. Member has said about pay. What I am aware of is that whatever the shortage may be it is being overtaken at a great rate. The rate of treatment rose by 15 per cent. in the last two years and the numbers of dentists qualifying toy 30 per cent. in the last four years.

Invalid Vehicle (Mr. James Speight)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health why an invalid vehicle has been refused to Mr. James Speight, of Blackburn, whose right leg has been permanently stiffened as a result of a war injury and who is unable to use public transport to get to work because he cannot sit down in the bus with his leg stretched out without obstructing other passengers, cannot stand inside because he is too tall, cannot mount the


stairs to travel on top, and has been refused permission to travel on the platform.

Mr. Braine: Mr. Speight is recovering from an operation. He will be re-examined before the end of the year to determine his eligibility.

Mrs. Castle: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the hon. Lady who preceded him has admitted to me that this man's leg has been permanently stiffened and that the operation cannot possibly alter that condition? As a result of that permanent stiffening, he cannot walk more than 150 yards without his leg swelling and causing him considerable pain. He has to go 2¼ miles to work. What is he supposed to do during the six months? Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a permanently stiffened leg can be even more difficult to manage than an artificial one? What is he suggesting, that the man should have his leg amputated in order that he should qualify?

Mr. Braine: Since Mr. Speight is recovering from an operation on his knee, it is not possible to estimate how well he will eventually be able to walk. Arrangements were made to re-examine him in six months' time. I am advised that our doctors consider that in due time he will be able to walk moderately well. I believe he may not qualify for a power-propelled vehicle. While a man's condition is slowly improving it is quite impossible to assess it for what after all is a Government appliance.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that as a result of this operation the man's right leg is 2¼ inches shorter than his left leg? The operation was merely concerned with infection of the bone following permanent stiffening of his knee. There is a principle involved here. If someone has a permanently stiffened knee he is in a worse condition than if he has an artificial leg; he finds it difficult to walk and to get about by public transport. Why is the Minister asking this man to wait when he has a disability now?

Mr. Braine: There appears to be some conflict in the evidence in this case. I fully understand the hon. Lady's anxiety in respect of her constituent and I shall certainly look into the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Broadmoor (Young Persons)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Health how many young persons aged 14, 15, 16 and 17, respectively, are at present detained at Broadmoor; whether his regulations prescribe any minimum age for such detention; and what special arrangements are made for the accommodation and treatment of such young persons.

Mr. Powell: One, none, 2 and 2, respectively; no; so far as possible they are kept as a group.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the surprise that will be engendered by the discovery that there is no statutory minimum age, or no minimum age laid down below which a young person or a child cannot be sent to what is, after all, by its nature a very formidable place, Broadmoor? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is proper in this day and age for a child of 14 to be committed to Broadmoor, under the Mental Health Act? Would it not be proper for him to open discussion with the appropriate legal authorities to see if some minimum age can be laid down?

Mr. Powell: I quite understand the considerations which are in my hon. Friend's mind, and very anxious consideration was given to this case. Where full security, such as is available only at Broadmoor, is necessary, accommodation at Broadmoor must necessarily be accepted. Nevertheless, the progress of this patient, as of all other Broadmoor patients, will be anxiously watched.

Kyre Park Hospital, Tenbury Wells

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Kyre Park, near Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire, was closed as a sanatorium more than fifteen months ago and has since stood idle, though fully equipped; what response he has sent to the city authority in Birmingham which has made application for the use of Kyre Park as a sanatorium and nursing home for children suffering from asthma, bronchitis and other chest ailments; what is the present cost to public funds of retaining Kyre


Park on a care and maintenance basis; and whether he will make a detailed statement as to the future of Kyre Park.

Mr. Powell: It was offered to the corporation last August: negotiations are proceeding on price. Equipment useful in other hospitals has been removed. Care and maintenance is at the rate of £2,640 a year.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of local anxieties, can my right hon. Friend say when he hopes to bring these negotiations to a conclusion?

Mr. Powell: Very soon, I hope.

Radio and Television

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to provide patients in National Health Service hospitals with earphones or otherwise prevent the seriously ill, and those who do not want it, being subjected to radio and television noise.

Mr. Braine: Hospitals have been advised to do this; earphones and pillowphones are in general use in most hospitals.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the hospitals have acted on this advice which I am glad the Ministry of Health is giving them?

Mr. Braine: I could not say without notice, but the attention of all hospital authorities was drawn to the matter in July last year when they were sent the Report of the Standing Nursing Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services Council.

Sir G. Nicholson: Does not that last answer rather indicate that the recommendations of the Department tend to be ignored? Surely it is a fact that in many hospitals and institutions this sort of thing goes on? Is it not very cruel and hindering recovery? Cannot the Department be persuaded to take a stronger line in this matter?

Mr. Braine: I do not think it at all fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) to draw that inference from my answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind—as he may well have—in respect of an individual hospital and will let me have the particulars, I shall certainly look into it straight away.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DINING ROOMS (BOOKINGS)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mrs. CASTLE: TO ask the hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will introduce a rule to prevent the booking of private dining rooms in the House of Commons by Members acting as, or on behalf of, a public relations consultant in the interests of a particular firm.

Sir C. BLACK: TO ask the hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, Whether it is permissible for the catering facilities at the House of Commons to be booked on behalf of public relations consultants.

Sir H. Butcher: With permission I should like to answer Questions 45 and 46.
As the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend know, the general rule regarding booking of private dining facilities is that no booking may be made for a private dining room except by a Member, who is obliged personally to attend the function.
In my opinion, cases which can be the subject of criticism are few and far between. Indeed, there have been only two instances since I have been Chairman which have caused me any anxiety and in each case the hon. Members concerned have been so good as to cancel their bookings as soon as I mentioned my misgivings to them.
Accordingly, I do not fed that it would be fair to the vast majority of Members to propose any alteration in the rules.
The Committee can go no further than to require adherence to the letter of their rule. The interpretation of its spirit in


the context of the dignity of the House must be a matter for hon. Members individually.

Mrs. Castle: But is it not a fact that in the most recent of the cases to which the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee refers the cancellation took place only after there had been considerable Press publicity about the matter and that the hon. Member, as Chairman, was in no position to enforce cancellation because he had not a specific rule? Is he also aware that 105 hon. Members signed a Motion the last Session asking that this rule should be introduced? Would he not safeguard his own position as well as the general reputation of the House if this were made an automatic rule, as suggested in my Question?

Sir H. Butcher: The fact remains that the functions to which the hon. Lady referred did not take place. It is rather difficult for any group of hon. Members serving as members of the Kitchen Committee to make rules which might bear quite hardly on their fellow Mem-bens. We prefer to leave it to the general good taste and feeling of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE (MEETINGS)

Mr. G. Brown: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give an undertaking that, in view of the disturbances on Sunday 22nd July, permission will not be granted for holding meetings in Trafalgar Square to persons proposing to engage in propaganda involving incitement to racial discrimination until Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss the matter further?

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I do not propose to use my powers under the Trafalgar Square Act, 1844, as a means of censorship over the political opinions expressed by the organisers of meetings in the Square.
I will continue to consult the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in view of his responsibility for maintaining public order.
It would be regrettable if the precedent were established that any body of

persons by attending a meeting for the purpose of making trouble could thereby ensure that the organisers would not be allowed to hold further meetings.
It was clear before the meeting began yesterday that there were a number of persons there determined to break it up.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that this answer seems to miss the real issue raised, which is whether free speech, which we cherish in this country, shall be used to destroy it and to destroy the moral basis of our society? Is he further aware that some consideration should be given to the police, who were put in an intolerable position yesterday? While one recognises that those who were affronted by racial hatred perhaps should not be provoked, and that other people climbed on the bandwagon, nevertheless this situation ought not to occur.
If the Minister—and I speak as one of his predecessors—wishes to rest on his ordinary position, will he agree that the right answer probably is to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the time is now ripe for an amendment of the Public Order Act to make incitement to racial discrimination an offence?

Mr. Rippon: Obviously, matters relating to the Amendment of the law are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Meanwhile, I think that it is my business to distinguish between those people who are advocating an opinion, although it is distasteful, and those who are organising an illegal action. The best thing that I can do in ordinary circumstances is to continue the previous practice, which has been to give permission in all cases unless it is clear that the organisers intend to break the law or to incite someone else to break the law or the Commissioner of Police advises that in any particular case there would be grave public disorder or danger of grave public disorder.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is not the moral that in this and similar instances it is desirable that political meetings of this sort should be prohibited within a certain distance of Westminster? Would not all the steam go out of meetings like these if the organisers were compelled to hold them some miles away?

Mr. Rippon: That is obviously a possibility, but I should regret it very much if we were driven to take such an action.

Mr. S. Silverman: While applauding the right hon. Gentleman's determination to uphold civic liberties and democratic rights in this country, may I ask him to bear in mind that every insane obsession is not a political idea and that the incitement to hatred of people because of things which were never within their control is not the exercise of free speech but the exercise of anarchy and wickedness?

Mr. Rippon: No one wants to condone any particular opinions which may be expressed on these occasions, but I do not think that it is our business to decide in advance that somebody will say something which is so distasteful and provocative that it will produce grave public disorder. What I think we must be careful about is banning public meetings not because the people holding them are likely to break the law, but because their opponents threaten a breach of the peace as a result.

Mr. Emery: Would the Minister not go a little further in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and consider that Trafalgar Square is a national monument and that it would be very much more convenient for most of the public if no political meetings were held in Trafalgar Square? If he did not grant permission to any political party, no question of censorship would be held against him. Could not these meetings be held in the centre of Hyde Park, where they could not be a matter of concern to any of the passing public?

Mr. Rippon: I take the point, which is more logical, at any rate, than that of trying to act as a censor.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that there are many people who deplore what is said at these meetings in Trafalgar Square, but who, nevertheless, agree with what the Minister says—that he does not think that it is the duty of the Executive to decide at its discretion that a meeting should be held or should not (be held? But is this not a reason for considering again the Racial Discrimination and Incitement Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough

(Mr. Brockway), and for allowing us to discuss that Bill? If 'the House voted down the Bill, it would be the House's business. But could we not at least discuss the Bill?

Mr. Rippon: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Am I wrong in thinking that it is sedition to incite hatred among any section of Her Majesty's subjects? If that is so, is not the enforcement of the law best left to those whose responsibility it is rather than to the lynch law of political extremists? If the Government were to do what the Opposition Front Bench ask of them, would not this encourage any group of political extremists to break up any Conservative, Labour, or Liberal meeting of which they did not approve?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that it is right that we must be very careful not to create a situation in which we try to anticipate what people may say or do. If an illegal action of any sort is committed while the meeting is taking place, the Commissioner of Police has powers to deal with the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: May I, first, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment?
Secondly, may I ask him whether, if he relies on the Commissioner of Police, who advises him as to whether there is likely to be disorder? Did the Commissioner of Police expect public disorder? If not, why were there 300 police present?

Mr. Rippon: There was no reason to expect grave public disorder of the kind which would justify cancelling the meeting. In fact, the Commissioner of Police dealt with matters, I should have thought, very satisfactorily.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the only freedom of speech worth having is freedom to speak things which run wholly counter to the spirit of the time? Secondly, will he consider whether the preservation of this sort of wide freedom necessarily involves having meetings the proceedings of which are electrically amplified in Trafalgar Square, which is a place of public resort where people, without having deliberately gone there to protest.


may legitimately complain that they could not help hearing things which deeply offended them? Is not that a perfectly good reason for not having such meetings in Trafalgar Square?

Mr. Rippon: I follow the point which has been made now by several hon. Members. I can only say that I should regret it if we had to make such a decision.

Mr. G.: Brown: To clear up a point made earlier, may I remind the Minister that the request I made was merely that he should exercise his powers not to allow further meetings until the House had discussed the matter, not that he should act as a censor, as it were, for ever?
Secondly, is it not clear that the conclusion to be drawn from the Minister's answers is that an amendment of the law to prevent—or to make it an offence —the preaching of racial hatred and intolerance is the real solution to the problem? Does he realise that the sort of answers he is now giving were given regularly before the Olympia meeting in, I think, 1936, and that after that the Government of the day had to change their mind and were applauded by the entire nation for doing so?

Mr. Rippon: The allocation of Parliamentary time for any purpose is not a matter for me.
As regards what happened in 1936, all I can say now is, as I said in my Answer, that I shall consider each case which comes up on its merits and I shall have regard to the situation as it develops.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this without a Question before the House.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BRUSSELS NEGOTIATIONS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the progress of the Brussels negotiations.
The ministerial meeting which began on 20th July was concerned with two

important aspects of the development of the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy—arrangements for annual reviews and the provision of a further assurance for farmers in the Community.
The arrangement worked out at this meeting contains the following elements: First, there will be an annual review of agriculture in the Community as a whole —a Community annual review. The information which member States will have to provide to enable the Commission to prepare this comprehensive review of the situation and the economic prospects of agriculture in the Community has been agreed between us in detail. In addition, member countries of the Community which wish to do so will previously carry out their own annual reviews.
The results of such reviews, together with any observation which member States concerned wish to put forward about them, will be forwarded to the Commission and taken into account by it in preparing the Community annual review. The Commission will also carry out consultations with representatives of interested organisations, particularly of farmers.
Secondly, the arrangement sets out explicity what the Community annual review itself is to cover. This includes trends in the profitability of the agricultural industry, trends in prices and costs within the Community and an assessment of their implications for production, consumption, imports and exports.
Thirdly, the arrangement covers the use to be made of the annual review when completed. The Commission must report to the Council of Ministers the results of the Community review and make appropriate proposals to the Council, particularly in the light of these results. The Council will also use the results of the annual review in taking decisions in the implementation of the Common agricultural policy.
Fourthly, the Community has accepted in this arrangement that, if the annual review shows that the remuneration in the agricultural industry does not ensure for the farmers of the Community or of particular areas of it a fair standard of living, in conformity with the objectives defined in Article 39 of the Treaty, the Commission will take up the question


either on its own initiative or at the request of a member State. The Commission will then submit to the Council of Ministers proposals to remedy this situation, and the necessary decisions will be taken by the Ministers.
To sum up, an arrangement has been reached for the establishment of a comprehensive Community review incorporating the results of those undertaken by national Governments. Its results will be applied by the institutions of the Community in the construction of a developing common agricultural policy. The Community has also accepted that there should be a general assurance with regard to farming incomes and has agreed upon the procedure by which this assurance must be implemented.
These are very important parts of our negotiations affecting domestic agriculture. Tomorrow, in Brussels, we shall return to other aspects of them, namely, certain commodities and horticulture. The ministerial meeting will continue for the remainder of the week and will deal with other important issues in the negotiations, in particular, those concerned with Commonwealth trade. I expect to make a further progress report to the House next Monday.

Mr. H. Wilson: In the light of his most recent visit to Brussels, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is still confident that we shall have a general outline of the shape of the agreement by the end of the month?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the Common Market debate last month, the Minister of Agriculture, unlike the Lord Privy Seal himself, went into great detail as to what he would require in the negotiations? Have the conditions expressed by the Minister of Agriculture in that debate been met, recognising, of course, that the matter of horticulture has still to be settled?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he understands would come out of the annual price reviews? Are they, as in this country, to be a determinant factor in the settling of the level of farmers' incomes? If they are, does that mean that they will have a direct effect on the prices to be settled by the Community?

Mr. Heath: It remains the objective of all seven Governments in the negotiations to work for this outline in the coming series of meetings this week, and I have every confidence that, if it is necessary to do so, we shall continue thereafter in order to try to complete the outline.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in the debate in the House that there were a number of things which were required in order to establish a comprehensive common agricultural policy. The two parts in the arrangement we negotiated last Friday are very important parts of it. The remaining parts, apart from horticulture, are, of course, the individual commodity arrangements which we are to resume discussing tomorrow.
As regards the effect of the review, I described in my statement how action will be taken following the review by the Commission and the Council of Ministers. This will be in all the developing aspects of the common agricultural policy, including price policy. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the price review in this country as being a determinant. It is not correct to say that there is any automaticity about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Although it cannot be withdrawn from the OFFICIAL REPORT, I hasten to withdraw it from the cognisance of the House. No automatic process follows the price review. The Government of the day have to take their decision in the light of that and of a number of other factors. In the same way, the Commission will make proposals and the Council of Ministers will take the decision.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend say what is meant both by Her Majesty's Government and by the other Powers by providing farmers with "a fair standard of living"? Does it mean what we in Britain consider to be a fair standard of living, or the common mean of the whole Community?

Mr. Heath: In dealing with incomes one has to use a phrase of this kind. We ourselves in our Agriculture Act, I believe, use the phrase "proper remuneration". This is a phrase which has to be interpreted and, in this case, the Treaty of Rome always uses the phrase "fair standard of living". In


this arrangement, it is linked with Article 39 of the Treaty which points out, first, that the object is a rising amount of individual incomes and also, as a connecting phrase, of the relationship between agriculture and the rest of the economy. It is in the light of Article 39 that our own particular situation must be assessed.

Mr. Peart: The other week the right hon. Gentleman gave the House, in the form of a White Paper, the text of his speech to the Council of Ministers, dealing with Euratom. Would it be possible to have a similar White Paper on the Government's approach to agriculture? Can we have a statement by the right hon. Gentleman and the views of the Minister of Agriculture in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon? The House should be informed not only of the general approach of the Government, but of the details of what our people put forward in Brussels.

Mr. Heath: It has become the practice that the opening statement of each series of negotiations with the Economic Community, Euratom, and the Coal and Steel Community should be published as White Papers, and the political statement to Western European Union, but we have not published individual conference documents nor statements made by the Ministers taking part. But I think that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will realise that, since these negotiations went on from quarter to seven in the evening until ten to four the following morning, this was a question not of making a prepared statement but of detailed and continuous negotiation over the whole field.

Sir H. Harrison: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is encouraging in the beginning. Is he aware that farmers as a whole and all those associated with them await the details which we may have next week because they want to be quite certain that before we enter the Common Market they will have the chance, to which my right hon. Friend referred, of an expansion of their industry as well as of industrial industry?

Mr. Heath: We will make the information available at the same time as the other detailed information about the negotiations is given to the House.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in these latest discussions anything further was said about schemes such as the marginal production scheme? Has there been a discussion of schemes similar to that and their treatment? We appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in coming back to this country and speaking English after his long sojourn abroad, but can he be more specific about the review? Does it include all agricultural produce—for instance, mutton and lamb?

Mr. Heath: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that we have not yet dealt in detail in the negotiations with the particular form of grants to which he has referred, although, of course, that is obviously a matter of great importance. Secondly, the reviews deal with all commodities.

Mr. Farr: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what will be the value of our domestic price review if our Government are to have only advisory powers on its implementation? Is not there a real danger that when the Council of Ministers comes to consider the recommendations it may concentrate its improvements on some of the less qualified areas in Europe, such as the peasant farmers of Italy or, indeed, of France, to the detriment of our own farming community?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. First, the review will, in exactly the same way as it does at the moment when held nationally, give a full account of the existing position and of prospects and so on. It is, therefore, of great importance in that respect on its own. Secondly, it enables the Government to form their own opinion about the state of the agricultural industry. Thirdly, the Government are not in an advisory capacity. They have their full membership of the Council of Ministers, which takes the decisions. Fourthly, the undertakings of the Community are treaty undertakings to which this will be a protocol and which the Community is therefore bound to carry out. There are the normal institutions of the Community for seeing that they are carried out.

Mr. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on significant progress during the last few days, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind later this week in Brussels two very important things? The first is that the acceptance of the principle of an annual price review does not necessarily mean adequate support prices for British farmers. The second is that we would dispose of a very great objection by the farming community to entry into the Common Market if horticultural products could be brought within the ambit of the annual price review which, although it has always defeated us in Britain, has been found practicable elsewhere?

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is. of course, right that the price arrangements for the individual commodities are of the greatest importance. That was why I said that we are returning to the matter of the individual arrangements when we start negotiations again in Brussels tomorrow. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members of the House will recognise that there has to be a balance in price policy in a community between its own domestic production and its imports. This applies to us as a country and to the enlarged Community, and it is of the greatest importance for Commonwealth trade in these foodstuffs.
My hon. Friend raised a very important point about the horticultural industry. That we shall discuss tomorrow, but it is not included in the present arrangement.

Mr. H. Wilson: When the annual review has been done in each country and the results reported to the Community, when there has been the Community review and the Commission has made its recommendation to the Council of Ministers, will a decision on those recommendations be by a simple majority, a qualified majority or a unanimous decision? Secondly—this matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—are we right in understanding that production grants can continue while deficiency payments cannot, that they have to be Community-wide in their arrangements, paid by the Community, and that there cannot be any nationally organised production grants?

Mr. Heath: As I have said, we have not yet had discussions in the negotiations about the future arrangements for these grants. Neither has the Community as a whole finally fixed its policy on this matter. The voting procedures at all stages come under the normal voting procedure of the Community, which is, broadly speaking, a unanimous vote up to the end of the second stage and thereafter a qualified vote. But it will depend on particular items of policy with which it is dealing as a result of the statistics and information in the reviews.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern among the farmworkers in Scotland as to whether these negotiations will result in a reduced standard of life? Can he give us an assurance that throughout all these negotiations he will defend the standard of life of our agricultural community and will not agree to anything which will mean a reduction in the standard of life of the agricultural workers?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. As I have said, that is particularly referred to in Article 39 of the Treaty. That refers to
increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture".
That was why the question of earnings was coupled with the assurance about a fair standard of living.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that this matter raises very wide and interesting topics, but we cannot have a debate without a Question being before the House on each of them.

NIGERIA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented on behalf of this House a Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Nigeria, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.

Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct your attention to the fact that it was arranged that part of this day should be devoted by Members from the North-East to a consideration of the economic position in that area and that the Members concerned have decided to impose restraint upon themselves to the extent that to enable as many as possible to take part in that debate they would speak for no longer than ten minutes each.
Is it possible. Mr. Speaker, to impose a similar restraint upon those who are to address the House in previous debates, otherwise there is no saying when the debate on the North-East will come on?

Mr. Speaker: In other places and other legislatures, appropriate powers are conferred upon the Chair; but that is not so here.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: It is a considerable time since the House debated the subject of disarmament and I do not feel able to agree with the proposal which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has just made. I hope that he will forgive me.
On 7th February this year, the Prime Minister joined with President Kennedy in writing a letter to Mr. Khrushchev about the Committee of Eighteen, which was then about to meet. They said that in that Committee
a supreme effort must be made
and that
at this time in our history, disarmament is the most urgent issue we face.

They said that
We must view the forthcoming disarmament meetings as an opportunity and a challenge which time and history may not once again allow us.
If the Government had acted on those admirable admonitions, the Minister of State would have been a member of the Cabinet long ago. He would have been given the help of an adequate staff of scientists and experts and, perhaps, as has been widely urged, an advisory committee of the highest standing. We much regret that none of that has yet been done. We much regret a good deal of what has happened in the Committee of Eighteen. I have a long note about its methods of procedure and about its records, but in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington has said, in view of the hour and of the shortness of our debate, I will send the Minister of State a blistering letter instead.
I turn at once to the substantive work of the Committee, and, first, to tests. Like all others, I have always demanded that a test ban should be made; but I have sometimes asked myself this question: if all the agitation about tests had been about general disarmament instead, if we had had the same worldwide movement of opinion, might it not have been the case that we should have stopped more tests than have actually been stopped and would we not now be nearer to the general treaty which alone will stop all tests throughout the world?
My doubts recurred when I read the early records of the Committee. Of the first 831 pages which I have received, 332 were about a test ban and 396 about a general disarmament treaty. That sum excludes eight long meetings of the sub-committee of the three nuclear Powers on tests. For weeks, these test debates seemed to lead to nothing but ill temper and frustration. But since the eight non-aligned nations began to take a hand there seems to have been a fairly rapid evolution of general thought.
I understand—I checked this with a high authority on Saturday last—that everyone is now agreed that the instruments and the scientific techniques have so improved that all tests in the atmosphere, all tests on the surface of the earth and all tests under water could now be detected by stations outside


Russia. I take Russia as the example of which we all naturally think.
I understand that it is also agreed that if there were a violent disturbance underground, that could likewise be detected from outside Russia. It is not agreed, however, that it could be with certainty determined whether that disturbance was an earthquake or a nuclear explosion. That can only be definitely established— this, I think, is the attitude of the Minister of State—by an on-site inspection undertaken by independent experts without delay; without this independent verification on the spot, a test ban treaty would be a sham.
We may all agree that the Russian reasons for rejecting on-site verification are, as we think, without foundation; taut I (believe that no one could read the letter from Mr. Khrushchev to the Prime Minister of 16th April without concluding that the Kremlin genuinely and passionately believes that on-site verification might be used to uncover the secrets of the Russian missile launching sites. That being so, it is certain, and a fact we must accept, that we shall not persuade the Russians to make a test ban on our present terms.
Are the proposals of the eight non-aligned nations really useless? Would their treaty be worse than none at all? They propose that teams of impartial experts stationed outside Russia should interpret all the seismic signals from Russia, and other countries, too, and if they thought that a given disturbance was suspicious and that it might be a nuclear test, they would so inform the Soviet Government and the Soviet Government could invite them to come and verify what had actually occurred. That means that the Soviet Government would decide whether or not verification should happen.
I believe it to be the attitude of the Minister of State that that makes the proposal worthless. But does it? What would happen if the Western plan were adopted, if international inspectors went into Russia and decided that there had been a treaty-breaking nuclear weapon test? What would be the sanction? Should we go to war? Evidently, the only rational sanction is that the treaty would lapse

and other nations would regain their freedom themselves to make tests.
That, however, can be the sanction of the eight-nation plan. If the impartial experts asked Russia to let them come and verify that no weapon tests had been made and if Russia refused to give them the invitation they desired, the rest of the world would naturally assume that Russia was self-condemned; and it could be laid down in the treaty that, after consultation, other parties would be entitled to make tests, preferably only similar tests—that is, underground.
Such a treaty would be imperfect, but it would abolish tests in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth and underwater—that is, the tests that do harm to human health. It would be a great restraint upon those who might seek disloyally to make secret tests underground. It would be a safeguard for other nations against such action. It is the only kind of test ban we have a hope of getting before the general disarmament treaty comes into force; and I personally believe that for that interval of time, before the general treaty, such a test ban would be well worth while, and that its signature might well release strong forces in favour of rapid progress on disarmament itself.
Of course, I know that the Minister of State is puzzled and alarmed, as are so many people in the West, by the morbid, profound suspicion about our motives which the Russians feel. How could anyone suspect the West of wanting to commit aggression against them? I have lived through a lot of history which the Minister of State and other hon. Members have fortunately escaped. I remember the Kaiser's onslaught on Russia in 1914. I remember the massive Western intervention in the Russian civil war—750,000 allied troops still fighting the Bolsheviks in March, 1919; I remember the Polish invasion in 1920 in the Ukraine. I remember Munich and Hitler's terrible onslaught.
All that history and a great deal besides, and many other events which I could recite if I had the time, have given the Russian Government and people what an American psychologist who speaks Russian like a native, and who recently has paid many visits to the Soviet Union, called a little while


ago "a pervasive fear of treachery and aggression from the West". That, again, we all regret, and we think it groundless, but it is a fact which we must accept, and, if we are to get a general disarmament treaty, the treaty must seem safe both to them and to us.
How can we get a treaty? The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary told us how, I think four months ago, in his second speech to the Committee of Eighteen. He used these words and I quote him at length:
The United States plan would move towards total disarmament in nine years by a continuous programme. The Soviet plan proposes total disarmament in four years. Here we have our main problem. The goal is the same … We should now work by going through both the plans before us, chapter by chapter, looking for the greatest amount of agreement in each measure, and, above all, not finding difficulties in principle where none exists. We on the British side intend to keep open minds … What we must find is a master agreement drawing on what is best in all the proposals before us.
In other words, we shall not get a treaty if we stick rigidly in every detail to the present Western line. There must be compromise, each side making concessions, because we recognise that an imperfect treaty is incomparably safer than no treaty at all.
Let me take four points on which, I believe, compromise must and can be made. First, four years or nine for the execution of the treaty. The arguments for acting quickly are very strong. Ambassador Wadsworth, who did this work for many years for the United States, said when he retired that he believed disarmament could be carried through in five or six years' time. Certainly, there are no technical difficulties in carrying out disarmament in six years or even less, and no economic difficulties. All the special studies—and there have been many—of the economic problems show that this is true. And the political advantages of a shorter period would be very real. I hope the Minister of State will bear that constantly in mind, especially when he is dealing with the subject of inspection and control.
Secondly, there is manpower. The United States proposes a total strength for the army, navy and air force together for themselves and for Russia of 21 million men at the end of the first

stage, that is, after three years. That would mean a reduction from present levels of 16 per cent. for the United States and 44 per cent.—if we have the figures right—for the Soviet Union. The Soviet propose a total strength of 1·7 million. That would be for the United States about the 30 per cent. which the American draft proposes for armament reduction. It would mean for the Russians a reduction of their forces by about 55 per cent.
It would be easy, or at least one would think so, to have a compromise on a middle figure between the two proposals —1·9 million; but I cannot help feeling that what we have argued for many years—I mean, the West—ds valid still, and that is that it is our major interest to secure the largest possible reduction in the conventional forces of the Russians.
Ten years ago Lord Gladwyn proposed in the United Nations Disarmament Commission a level of 1 million for Russia and for the United States, or at most of 1·5 million. Mr. Khrushchev accepted that in 1955. He told me when I saw him that he was prepared to cut in the first stage to 1 million if we so desired. For my part, I can imagine nothing that would so improve the relative strength of the West. I hope that the Minister of State will remember that, if we are to have some of the Foreign Secretary's compromises, the United States figure of 2·1 million is by no means sacrosanct, and that nothing could so stimulate hopes for real disarmament as agreement on a lower manpower limit at an early stage.
Thirdly, there is the means of delivery—or the vehicles, as Jules Moch calls them—by which nuclear weapons can be used. In my belief, this is the most important single issue with which the Committee has to deal, an issue on which, again, a compromise is definitely required. Both sides propose their abolition, the United States by gradual stages over a period of nine years, the Soviet by a drastic operation, abolishing 100 per cent. of the aircraft and missiles which can carry bombs, of the submarines, surface vessels, launching pads and cannon within a period of twenty-one months.
I have argued with the Russians in recent weeks in several contexts that the


abolition of two-thirds of these vehicles in six years would be a very notable result. But all the same I believe that it would be much safer from our own point of view to agree on a more ambitious programme.
Where did Mr. Khrushchev get this idea about the means of delivery and about their abolition in the first stage of the disarmament treaty? It was invented in this country as a safeguard against the danger of a secret nuclear stock. It was put forward as a first stage measure by the Labour Party Annual Conference in 1958. It was taken up by M. Jules Moch, and expounded to the General Assembly of the United Nations in September, 1959. It was endorsed in general principle by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Foreign Secretary, in January, 1960. It was proposed with more emphasis and detail by M. Moch in the Committee of Ten, in March, 1960, when M. Moch said that the vehicles must be rapidly destroyed "while there is still time".
President de Gaulle gave that proposal his full support in speeches to our Parliament and to the Congress of the United States. It was only after all that had happened that Mr. Khrushchev put forward, in his paper for the abortive Summit of May, 1960, the proposal that the vehicles should be destroyed during the first stage. In one speech I read the Minister of State said that that was unrealistic. M. Moch, who knows something of these matters, still believes it could be done, though the stage might be longer than twenty-one months.
There are two other points that I want to put to the Minister of State. Giant strides are being made in the means of delivery—missiles, aircraft and others. Existing types are obsolete very soon. The United States' proposals would permit the manufacture of new weapons and delivery systems for the first three years. Might that not mean that a Government destroying 30 per cent. of its obsolescent aircraft and missiles might nevertheless be more powerfully equipped when the first stage had been completed? That is why I think that a compromise is needed. If we really want to reduce the danger of surprise attack, I believe that the first-stage cut in the means of delivery might well be

about 50 per cent. of what now exists, and there should be the (prohibition of the manufacture of new and more powerful types.
Fourthly, let me speak of inspection and contral—most inadequatedy. Because of the restrictions on time, I will go straight to the problem of "the armaments that remain" Why have the Russians taken up what we consider to be their perverse position? A few weeks ago, in a Committee room upstairs, Sir John Cockcroft said:
A probable reason for this attitude of the U.S.S.R. is their understandable reluctance to disclose their inter-continental ballistic missile sites, since their deterrent of offensive capability depends very largely on secrecy of locations. The United States, on the other hand, depend on a very large number of variegated weapons distributed over a large number of sites and bases.
I cannot trace—I may be wrong—that the Russians showed any reluctance to allow inspection of the armaments that remain until after 1960; that is to say, until they had absorbed the fact that the United States was then proposing to keep a large deterrent force of nuclear missiles for a period of years. Let no one think that in their present draft treaty the Russians are rejecting the principle of international inspection and control. On the contrary, if their first-stage proposals were carried out there would be such a massive disarmament in Russia, all of it under international control, that the whole country would be full of United Nations inspectors. They might still succeed in hiding missile bases, but I think that they would be hiding little else.
But suppose there was much less disarmament than the Soviet Union propose. Suppose it was only the United States' 30 per cent. in the first stage. Should we be taking a great risk if we did not inspect the armaments that remain? Sir John Cockcroft, in the speech I have quoted, suggested that we should not. We know fairly accurately, of course, what armaments the Soviet Union possesses. I am sure that the Minister of State is familiar with the publication of the Institute of Strategic Studies which sets it all out. If we followed Sir John's suggestion, we should accept the Russian proposal for the first stage of 30 per cent. reduction and then persuade the Russians to accept some


system of Sohn zones for the remaining two stages.
I do not put forward that plan as my own, still less have I any authority to endorse it from the Labour Party. I put it forward as Sir John's. But I confess that I think the risk of Russia successfully cheating under that plan might be relatively small. As I have said, we know fairly well what forces and armaments she has now. Our intelligence services would still be at work. In any case, it is clear that if we are to have a treaty at all we must find some accommodation with the Russians. In that accommodation Russia must certainly make big concessions from her present line for the later stages. Perhaps also, for the first, she must accept some system of Sohn zone. There are many variants. I hope that the Minister of State will discuss them in great detail, and with what the Foreign Secretary calls "an open mind", with his colleagues from the Soviet bloc when he returns to Geneva. We know that without adequate inspection there will not be a treaty, and the Russians recognise it, too. But I add: the greater the disarmament carried out, and the more swifitly it (is done, the less the risk that anyone can cheat.
I conclude by making some modest suggestions to the Minister of State. First, he has been trying in the Committee of Eighteen to make progress by appointing sub-committees to draw up detailed technical plans about such matters as the cut-off, the abolition of nuclear stocks, biological and chemical warfare and other matters. The Russians have resisted his proposals, perhaps because they are afraid of giving things away before the main objectives have been finally agreed. But there are two ways in which such expert studies could be made without the Russian Government giving anything away or being committed to anything before they so desire.
First, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the instructions of the General Assembly, could set up committees of independent experts, like the Committee on the Economic and Social Consequences of Disarmament, which reported so successfully a few months ago. Secondly, and simpler, the Minister of State could ask British experts to

draw up detailed plans and could lay them before the Committee of Eighteen as our contribution to its work. There is nothing to prevent him doing that. I am certain that our experts could fulfil the task. It would be a service of the highest importance at the present time.
I would respectfully suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister of State sometimes took a more definitely British line. Many of his speeches in Geneva could fairly be summed up in words which he himself used on 3rd April:
I do not propose to take the time of the Conference by going into detail on the Western case. I would simply say that I agree in general with everything that Mr. Dean said.
People often complain about the boredom of listening to the same speeches constantly repeated by the Eastern bloc. Reading the minutes of the Committee, I have sometimes wondered whether, except for Canada, the West is much less monolithic than the East. No one wants the Minister of State to quarrel with the United States, but if the Foreign Secretary's principle is to be observed it must be right for Britain to try to get the United States delegate sometimes to change his line.
Lastly, I hope that the Minister of State will remember the vast importance of time. The arms race is gaining now while the Committee sits a fierce momentum which it has never had before. In pursuance of election pledges, President Kennedy increased by 25 per cent. the United States defence budget in 1961. Congress has voted 800 Minute-men—inter-iconitinental missiles in invulnerable concrete sites. They will add another 500 megatons to America's striking power; that is to say, an explosive force equal to 25,000 of the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima.
Mr. Khrushchev replies by stalling on the test ban in March of last year, by starting tests, by much greater increases in men and money than the United States has made. This arms race is itself the greatest danger to the Committee of Eighteen. When Mr. McNamara talks, as he must, about different kinds of nuclear war which would cost the West 25 million or 200 million dead, that is not the random talk of an uninformed civilian. He is the


Secretary of Defence. He is speaking of the plans which his general staffs, furnished with the nuclear stockpiles, have been obliged to make.
That is the task on which the Committee of Eighteen is now engaged. Some hon. Members still believe that disarmament is unpractical, a Utopian dream. I prefer the considered verdict of the twelve Commonwealth Prime Ministers who, with staff advice, declared a year ago that general and complete disarmament is the best, last, hope of man.

4.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I think that it would probably be appropriate if I were to intervene at this stage. We have a very short debate and I shall seek not to take up too much time. As it is my duty to give a progress report, it would perhaps be more helpful to hon. Members if I spoke now. If there are any particular points to which hon. Members require urgent answer, I will ask permission at the end of the debate for two or three minutes in which to reply, but I hope that what I say now will deal with the position from the Government's point of view.
I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), as I always do when he speaks on matters relating to disarmament because we all know the authority with which he speaks and this deserves respect. I shall touch on some of the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised, some of which are extremely interesting. I would, however, refute straight away the comment which he made at the end of his speech and which, I think, was unfair in relation to the part played by Britain in the present negotiations.
To suggest that we have been merely tailing behind the United States is a travesty of the facts. The British delegation, whether led by my noble Friend, by myself, or by Sir Michael Wright, has played an important part in these talks and given a lead on a number of subjects, including one or two on which I shall touch before I finish my speech. To pretend otherwise is to misread the reports which, I know, the right hon. Gentleman so carefully studies.
I want to try to give a progress report on the position at which we have now arrived. We started in March and went on continuously until mid-June, when we had a short recess, and are now fully engaged again in discussions both on general disarmament and on nuclear tests. This conference takes place against the background of two important innovations in disarmament conferences.
The first is that we have as a guide the agreed principles. These principles were hammered out between the United States and the Soviet Government between the time that Mr. Kennedy's Administration came into office and last September. These agreed principles have proved already of invaluable help in guiding discussions in the right direction. We have also had the presence of eight neutral countries, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and there is no doubt that they have been extremely helpful to the negotiations as a whole. As their members have become increasingly absorbed in the topic and have come to learn the intricacies of it, they have given more and more valuable advice. I very warmly welcome their presence in Geneva.
In our discussions we have had two plans in front of us. First, the Soviet plan, put forward at the beginning of the conference, which is based very largely on the Soviet proposals on disarmament which were first brought forward in 1960. They have put what they call "Treaty language" on to the proposals and they very largely reflect their thinking in that regard. Secondly, we have the United States plan, brought forward a few weeks later, but which is, of course, based on later considerations. It is based on the Agreed Principles published last September.
As I shall seek to show, it follows much more closely those Agreed Principles than does the Soviet plan. Those are the two plans which we have been discussing. They both provide for general and complete disarmament to take place in three stages. The differences lie mainly in the stages at which certain key reductions of armaments should take place. There is also the major difficulty of verification to which I shall come later.
First, let me explain clearly what are the major differences. The United States


plan provides for a 30 per cent. reduction across the board of all conventional weapons and nuclear delivery vehicles, which is the jargon that we use for the means of transporting nuclear warheads to their target, whether bombers, rockets or any other means.
We must recognise that this means 30 per cent. of all conventional and nuclear delivery vehicles in the first stage and the remainder split up evenly between the second and third stages. They have certain refinements on smaller conventional arms and on the nuclear weapons themselves, but this is the broad approach. The Soviet plan proposes a far more complete reduction in the first stage. It proposes a 100 per cent. destruction of nuclear delivery vehicles in the first stage. The right hon. Gentleman traced the history of that proposal. Although it may have had the parentage to which he referred and although it is now the Soviet Union's policy, it is not one which I would commend to the House. I shall seek to explain why.
I would bracket that with another of the Soviet proposals, which is the elimination of all foreign bases in the first stage. These two proposals taken together affront the Agreed Principles in a very important particular. The fifth of the Agreed Principles states
That all measures of general and complete disarmament should be balanced so that at no stage in the implementation of the Treaty could any state or group of states gain military advantage and that security is ensured equally for all.
If these two proposals were taken together it must mean that N.A.T.O. would be dissolved straight away in the very first stage and the ability of the West would be inhibited completely to come to the aid of our European allies, while, at the same time, the Soviet Union would retain large mobile convential forces within easy reach of possible targets. This has to be faced frankly. That is why I say that these proposals are unrealistic.
Only last week in the conference the claim was made both by the Russian and the Polish delegates that at the very beginning of the disarmament process all defence associations of States would be eliminated. I retorted straight away that I could not accept that concept. I do not believe that human nature could be expected to accept that immediately

a disarmament treaty were signed that there then would be no more risks. These things have to be brought about gradually. Of course, all defence associations will go by the end of the last stage, but to suggest that right at the beginning of the first stage this will happen is completely unrealistic and appears to us to be an attitude which does not seem either to be realistic or really concerned in making progress in general disarmament. These proposals are not acceptable because they are quite incompatible with the Agreed Principles.
There is a third Soviet proposal which I find also unacceptable. That refers to the complete elimination of the nuclear warheads themselves in the second stage, the sequence being delivery vehicles in the first stage and warheads in the second. Here, we come up against the problem of verification. This is the core of so many of our problems.
Verification is of particular importance in relation to the warheads. By reason of their smallness relative to their destrictive capability, it is very easy to hide away only a few which could materially affect the balance of power. Thus, to propose the elimination of them in the second stage, before the verification procedures had reached anywhere near the position of being able to look over all countries, is unrealistic.
This is something we have to do by degrees, and I believe that the whole process of the elimination of these nuclear warheads calls for special procedures. In this connection, I have already proposed a special expert study, but so far the Soviet Union has declined to agree to such studies. That is a pity, but I hope that the Russians will agree in due course. We propose the setting up of a special study group to look into the problems of verification in relation to nuclear weapons.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman consider my proposal that British experts should prepare such plans and lay them before the Committee?

Mr. Godber: I was about to deal with that point. It is a proposal Which attracts me, and we have, in fact, already given it some thought.
We are considering the laying of certain papers on some of these subjects before the Committee. We have the idea in band. Whether it will be possible to operate in relation to this particular problem in the near future, I do not know, but I do accept the principle that we should lay such papers. I hope that we will encourage other countries, notably the Soviet Union, to join in such studies.
The whole question of verification is at the core of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the question of Sohn zones is something that we should press more fully, but he talked of the many variants of it. As the House knows, this is a proposal for an inspection system. The idea is that one should split up countries into zones and that opposing sides should have the opportunity to pick a particular zone which could then be fully inspected at a particular period.
The United States plan is that the percentage of zonal inspection shall correspond to the percentage of disarmament at a particular time so that if, at the end of the first stage, there had been a 30 per cent. reduction in armaments it would then be logical to call for zonal inspection of 30 per cent. of the territory.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that possibly in the first stage this would be unnecessary and could be brought in at later stages. I see the force of his argument, but one has to remember in connection with this aspect, that verification procedures will be difficult to carry out and will require a great deal of skill. It will not be an easy process, and it will take time to get the machinery working properly and the verification inspectors on the job. Therefore, one has to set the system going before one can expect results. It will take time to get results, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
But I do not exclude the idea that, possibly in the earliest part of the first stage, there might be less need for full verification of remainders. I accept that as a general principle. This is something which we want to discuss and which I shall be only too willing to discuss with our Soviet colleagues in detail to see how best we can get on.
What saddens me is that in this matter the Soviet Union has not only taken no notice of this imaginative new proposal for zonal inspection but has, apparently, rejected it out of hand. In doing so, it has brought forward no proposals of its own to match this plan in order to have some way of checking that countries have not got more of a particular kind of armaments left than they say. There must be some way of doing this.
We believe that the Sohn zones plan is an imaginative one, which should be used. If the Soviet Union will not accept it, it is its duty to propose alternatives, as I have said bluntly at Geneva. So far it has proposed none, but I hope that it will before long. I have deliberately stressed this matter because it is of tremendous importance.
In our present discussions at Geneva, having concluded a full exposition of the two plans, I have been seeking to propose to the conference ways in which we can do future business at an increased speed. Last week I proposed, on behalf of the United Kingdom, 11 subjects which we believe deserve discussion in detail and in depth. I pointed out that we were willing for these subjects to be discussed either in plenary session, or in sub-committees, or at informal meetings—in any way the conference thought fit. I tried to draw together in this list what we think are the matters of greatest importance.
The list covers: (1) reduction of conventional armaments; (2) reduction of nuclear delivery vehicles; (3) setting up some means of verification for remainders; (4) cut-off of production and transfer of fissile material; (5) nuclear warheads; (6) bases: (7) verification of production of warheads; (8) disarmament machinery and the United Nations peace force (which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch on because of time, but which is of great importance); (9) force levels in relation to verification; (10) outer space; (11) the International Disarmament Organisation. If we could get discussion on all these measures I believe that this would help us forward a great deal.
I would like to go on longer about the work in the main committee, but I am endeavouring to cover many aspects. Having just sketched that position briefly, I should mention something


about the Committee of the Whole which was set up to deal with the measures which would be preliminary to general and complete disarmament. We had great hopes when this Committee was set up, that we could get some measures on which we could record early agreement. This would have helped to improve the atmosphere for the wider discussion of general and complete disarmament.
Our first subject, chosen by the Soviet Union, was a declaration on the stopping of war propaganda. After lengthy discussion, we drew up an agreed text. At the last moment, having agreed the text, the Russians suddenly repudiated their own agreement and only last week sought to delete from the official record all reference to their undertaking to agree. This was a very regrettable occasion and did great harm in the conference besides having taken up valuable time.
We have now started new discussions on the non-dissemination of nuclear weapons and the avoidance of war by miscalculation. These are both vital matters on which agreement, if we could reach it—or at least make some effort towards it—would be very valuable.
The question of the avoidance of war by miscalculation includes a means of direct communication between the Kremlin and the White House, for special teams of observers at particular points, for advance notification of military movements, and for a number of other items. There is a lot of opportunity here if there is a genuine desire on both sides to reduce tension—and there certainly is a genuine desire on our side. Other topics on the agenda of the Committee of the Whole include nuclear-free zones, safeguards against surprise attack, a N.A.T.O.-Warsaw non-aggression pact, and a variety of other matters which I hope we shall come to soon.
At the moment my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Geneva. He hopes to participate in the Disarmament Conference after the Conference on Laos before he returns home to London this week. I know Chat he is very keen to highlight one or two of the issues at the Disarmament Conference.
I turn now to nuclear tests, to which the right horn. Gentleman devoted quite

rightly, a considerable part of his speech. Undoubtedly, the Russian announcement over the weekend underlines the need to reach agreement. The statement, of course, is merely a formal confirmation of what we have been told on various occasions by Mr. Khrushchev and others. Therefore, of course, we have recognised this factor in our negotiations for some time. We can only deplore the fact that the Russians are to have another series of tests, and we must obviously redouble our efforts to reach a treaty.
In this respect, it is very important with the whole matter of nuclear tests, to keep in mind the facts as they have emerged over the last few years since we started trying to get agreement on a test ban treaty, as long ago as 1958, because we have worked forward from that stage. All the discussions up to 28th November, last year, were based on the agreed experts' report, so that we had clear scientific agreement between the two sides about what we were talking about.
But from 28th November last year, when the Russians repudiated the agreed experts' report, we have been in the difficulty chat there has been a difference of view about this matter, because, after carrying out their massive series of tests last autumn, the Russians put forward their proposal on 28th November which paid no regard whatever to the agreed experts' report.
It is important to remember that prior to that date the Russians had been willing to contemplate some degree—I say some degree—of on-site inspection. This is the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient attention, because if they were willing to accept on-site inspection up to 28th November, last year, how has it become so much more a matter of espionage now? They were not prepared to accept many inspections—they wanted a quota of only three a year—but they were willing to accept some on-site inspection. They have since refused, and I have been bound to conclude at times that they were not anxious at that time to conclude a treaty. That may have been related to the fact that they wanted to have another series of tests, but I very much hope that now they have made their statement they will be more ready to negotiate with us.
Since 16th April, this year, we have had the advantage of the memorandum which was prepared by the eight neutral countries who participate in our discussions. They presented their memorandum which I described in the House on the last occasion when we discussed this matter. We have been trying to continue negotiations ever since then with the Russians, using the eight-Power memorandum as a basis. For their part, the Russians have continued to pay lip-service to the memorandum but have continuously refused to start any serious discussion of it.
I emphasise that in particular because of the statement, issued by the Soviet Union over the weekend in relation to their resumption of tests, in which they say:
… the United States and Britain in effect refused in the 18-nation disarmament committee to accept as the basis for the talks—as the Soviet Union had done—the proposal "—
of the neutral states—
providing for control over the test ban agreement with the help of national means of detection.
That is completely untrue. The Western Powers had accepted this as a basis of negotiation, and we have tried to negotiate on it repeatedly.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Is it not a fact that the two Western Governments agreed to the neutrals' proposals as one of the bases for discussion and not as the basis? Is there not a difference between having it as a basis and having it as the basis?

Mr. Godber: That would be a perfectly fair point. But we have accepted it as one of the bases and the Russians have said the basis and having said that they accept it as the basis, they have refused to use it as the basis. They have refused to negotiate on it. They keep repeating, parrot-like, that they are ready to negotiate on it. But when I or my United States colleague have tried to get them into negotiation on it, they have refused. I have tried on the three major proposals in it—relating to the detection of tests, the international system and on-site inspection. On each and every one of those I have tried to get them into detailed discussion, thinking that by so doing we might narrow the differences

between us. I tried initially in reflation to the international commission, because I thought that that would be the subject of the least difference of opinion. I then tried on the detection system, and finally on on-site inspection. But every urns the Russians refused to negotiate.
When the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with on-site inspection, he asked what was the sanction if one side broke the agreement. He said that under the eight-nation proposals, if the Russians refused, the others would be perfectly free to abrogate the treaty. I asked Mr. Tsarapkin whether he would tell us, so that we might know, whether the Russians would invite us and in any case tell us how many times a year they expected to do so because they know roughly how many seismic events a year there might be which could be suspicious. But he refused to give us any indication that they would invite us at all.
One could set up the whole of the elaborate paraphernalia under the system envisaged in the eight-Power memorandum and then, on the first occasion when there was a seismic disturbance and the Russians did not invite inspection, the whole elaborate arrangement would fall to the ground. That is not the basis on which we can set it up. We must have some indication in advance of their good faith as regards on-site inspection. While we are still anxious for detailed discussion of this subject, it is impossible for one side to discuss it on its own, and I still hope that the Russians will be willing to enter detailed discussions about it.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Does the hon. Gentleman associate in his own mind any hardening of the Russian view about on-site inspection and the early conclusion of a test ban treaty with the United States counter-proposals for a longer period for disarmament, a period during which there would be more opportunity for a fresh look at things and an escape clause from the treaty?

Mr. Godber: That could apply in relation only to disarmament and not in relation to nuclear tests. One has to take the two separately. They had rejected this before the new United States disarmament proposals came out. I can see the validity of the point about length of time when we are


talking about disarmament, but it does not apply in this case because there is no length of time and the treaty would come into effect as soon as the initial procedures had been set up. I do not think that there is a very good tie-up.
While we have tried, and will continue to try, to get agreement and are only too glad to make use of the good offices of the eight neutral nations, we must have some help from the Russians as well if we are to make progress. When in November, 1961, they rejected the previous agreed scientific position, we asked them to let us have their latest scientific evidence on which their claim was based, and since then we have repeatedly asked them to let their scientists join ours and neutral scientists in order to secure a fresh agreed scientific assessment. In this connection, I looked up how many times we had asked the Russians to join with our scientists so that we could get an agreed scientific evaluation again since they rejected the experts' report of 1958. I found that on no fewer than 23 occasions before 25th April, this year, had we made formal requests to them, and since then I have done so many times myself. It is only if we can get an agreement on what the scientific position is that we can make progress.
I should like to refer to the recent announcement of the American Department of Defense on the Vela project. There is new experimental evidence relating to the detection and identification of underground tests. This evidence, which has only just come to light, is being evaluated urgently, but I am not yet in a position to state what effect it will have on the requirements of an effectively controlled nuclear test ban treaty. What is clear is that in the present state of knowledge the need for both detection posts and on-site inspection will remain. It may be possible substantially to reduce the number of detection posts, but there will still have to be a network of posts sited with due regard to their technical capability. Nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that on-site inspection will not continue to be an essential requirement.
These scientific advances which have been announced may enable us to identify as earthquakes or as nuclear tests a larger number of seismic events

than we could so identify in 1958, but so long as a certain number—or, indeed, any number—of unexplained events are registered by detection posts, on-site inspection must be needed, because without this provision an alleged but unproven violation might be used as a pretext for abrogating the treaty. This is an important aspect which should not be forgotten. A country which wished to abrogate the treaty could accuse another of having carried out a test, saying that its own detection post indicated it. If there is some means of proving yes or no, this is not possible.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I intervene only for the purpose of clarification. As I understand, before the latest scientific reports were received, which the right hon. Gentleman says are now being studied, it had already been established that the area in which doubt might remain, doubt which on-the-spot inspection might clear up, was already a very small area of the whole field, and that if dispensing with on-site inspection involved a risk such as the right hon. Gentleman has just described, it was only a small risk.
I understand that what he is now saying is that the latest scientific reports have reduced that small risk to yet smaller proportions. Therefore, it must be little more than an infinitesimal risk that remains. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that supposing his examination of these latest scientific investigations shows that the area of risk has been reduced to a minute proportion in relation to the whole range, it would still make on-the-spot inspection a breaking point in the negotiations?

Mr. Godber: No. The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong, and, therefore, his argument falls. In fact, the area was not very small before these latest evaluations appeared. The area was substantial. There was a considerable number of seismic events which one could not detect, or, having detected, could not identify. That is the important thing.
While I hope very much that this latest development will narrow the field, it is still a substantial one. We would not wish to keep them on if they were not necessary. The position at the moment is that until now the latest


information is that there have been some hundreds of seismic events annually, of which one could not be certain. We must, therefore, wait until we have this clarification of the latest evaluation, and, obviously, we shall give such information as we can in relation to it just as soon as we can. I repeat that we must continue on the present basis until we have a clear picture from the new scientific evidence.
I remind the House that if the Soviet Union feels otherwise we are only too happy to have its scientists meet ours and thrash this out so that we get an agreed basis. If we do that, then I think that that will give us the best possible opportunity in which to go forward to the formulation of a treaty. As soon as we are in a position to bring forward any new proposal if we are ever able to, this will be presented at Geneva.
Meanwhile, our offer to the Russians for these scientific talks stands. That is where the position must rest until we are clearer in this regard. Our present talks took place against a background of two series of tests, one Russian and one Western, and against the declared intention, now confirmed, of the Russians to hold yet another series.
In these circumstances, the Mexican suggestion made at Geneva that a treaty should be negotiated now, to come into effect from the beginning of next year, has very considerable promise. In the Light of the Soviet statement this weekend it could have special significance, and this is something to which I attach considerable importance. I hope that in spite of Russian intentions for the immediate future we can still negotiate a treaty, having this Mexican proposal in mind. Agreement on the cessation of tests would not only be a major achievement of itself; it would also give a fresh stimulus to the much wider and more complicated negotiations on disarmament itself.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South made the point that had we put more of the energy and effort spent on nuclear tests talks into general and complete disarmament negotiations we might have got further. But they are much more complicated, and if we can get agreement in this narrower field it can lead us forward into the broader one of general and complete disarmament.
I have tried as shortly as I can to sketch the present position on the wider issues as well as on nuclear tests. I would not pretend to the House that the outlook for general and complete disarmament is encouraging, but Her Majesty's Government will continue to do all that they can to bring agreement near. Our discussions up to now have in the main been less acrimonious than other recent disarmament talks. We have had general talks on the proposals and both plans before the conference.
I am returning to Geneva tonight to continue the discussions. I hope that I shall find agreement there to the procedural proposals that I put forward last week, and to which I have referred, and, if so, we can go into more detailed discussion of the major issues. I believe that such detailed confrontation should serve to show which proposals are the more sound, the more workmanlike and fair, and conform most closely to the agreed principles to which I have referred. We in the West are prepared to look at our proposals again if they are shown to fail before this test. If the Russians approach the matter in the same way and in the same spirit progress will be possible, and if we all remember our duty to mankind progress must be possible.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: May I ask the House for an exercise of the traditional indulgence which I believe is shown to Members who are making their first contribution to a debate in this Chamber; more especially as the subject upon which I am speaking is not one on which I claim to have either the expert knowledge or the great experience which so characterised the contribution of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker).
My very distinguished and much beloved predecessor, the late Mr. Clement Davies, represented the constituency of Montgomery for thirty-three years, and during the whole of that time two of the causes to which he was most devoted were those for the movement for world government and internationally controlled disarmament. This was, I believe, in many ways brought about by the fact that he had been born and nurtured in the peaceful, beautiful County of Montgomeryshire, and in


taking up the movements he was following in the footsteps of his own illustrious predecessor the late Lord Davies, who as David Davies was a Member of this House and devoted a lifetime of advocacy and writing to the cause of an international police force, which at that time was certainly a pioneer idea.
I am therefore conscious of the fact that I follow in a proud tradition, though I am also very conscious of the fact that I must do so very inadequately. I know that my predecessors would have approved my choice of this subject for my maiden contribution in this House, and I can only hope that I shall be able to make some worthwhile contribution to the thoughts of the House on the matter.
It seems to me that the first impression gained by a student of disarmament, and it is a lasting one, is that the path to progress lies through a jungle of despairing disagreement. In that jungle, as I imagine in every other jungle, the chief forces actuating behaviour are fear and suspicion. Therefore, every proposal for progress, or every step suggested, is greeted on all sides by grave scepticism. But at the same time—and this is the tragedy of the situation—this great scepticism is matched by a profound yearning on all sides that we should reach some measure of agreement on disarmament and that we should have some guarantee of freedom from war. There is now so much disillusion engendered by the lack of progress on disarmament that some people have come to regard any proposal for disarmament, however modest, as being in itself fantastic, unrealistic and dangerous. The answer to that surely must be that no proposal for disarmament, however ambitious, can be as fantastic, as unrealistic and as dangerous as the uncontrolled nuclear arms race of today.
It seems to me that three assumptions can be made with reasonable safety in approaching this problem. The first assumption is that there is both in the Western bloc and in the Soviet bloc a very definite and profound yearning for peace, that is among the Governments and the peoples. There is, therefore, the will to peace. The second assumption is that the complete lack of progress— and it is almost complete—is due to lack of confidence on both sides. The

truth is that not one side trusts the other an inch. There is an absence of belief in a common sincerity of purpose.
The third assumption which I make— and I do not claim to be an expert on the technical considerations involved in disarmament—is that the technical problems of disarmament can be solved if the politcal problems can be solved. I think that is the view of most informed scientists and represents the view expressed by Sir John Cockcroft a few weeks ago at a meeting in the Palace of Westminster. One can, therefore, put it this way—that if there was the political will to disarmament the technical way could be achieved. Coming with an almost virgin mind to the problem, although I have been greatly interested in it for many years, it seems to me, (therefore, that what one needs to do more than anything else is to create some groundwork of trust and confidence between the Russian bloc and our own.
The basic problem, therefore, is a political one and not a technical one and I think that it is a reasonable criticism of the West that it has been rather preoccupied with the technical problem of disarmament as opposed to the political problem involved. I believe that it was Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir John Slessor who in a recent book What Price Co-Existence? who put it that we have been rather too concerned with how disarmament could be achieved and too little concerned with why it should be achieved.
There is great danger in the defensive attitude of the West. It is understandable, but not excusable. I do not minimise for a moment the difficulties of the Western negotiators faced with the cold hostility of the Soviet Union and I bear in mind Mr. Khrushchev's own defined interpretation of peaceful co-existence as an intense struggle virtually by every means short of war. It has not been easy, therefore, to be other than on the defensive in the face of that declaration of attitude by the other side. Nevertheless, the West has been on the defensive for so long that one almost feels at times that we have been frozen into a kind of political immobility of attitude. I think that Mr. Khrushchev once said that there are no neutral individuals; he said


this in relation to the late Mr. Hammarskjoeld. The same attitude was characterised in the West by the late Mr. John Foster Dulles' statement that neutrality was immoral.
I should like to make the very modest suggestion that the West is certainly right in maintaining that there ought to be on-site inspection. At the same time, it is impossible to expect Russia to agree to on-site inspection in the present circumstances, within Russia itself. But what the West surely needs is a change of political attitude and a political offensive not against the Soviet Union but a political offensive in the cause of peace and disarmament.
There are two suggestions which I should like to make. Firstly, that it is impossible to build this trust and confidence unless we build it up in one place first. The Russians will not learn to trust us around the conference table but only by practice, and we will learn to trust them only by proof in practice. I see the merit of the Sohn zones or regional zones of disarmament within Russia and the United States, but surely we must take an even more elemental step than that, and I suggest that the West might propose one experimental area in which the Western and Soviet Blocks can try out inspection, arms control and eventually a measure of military disengagement.
Secondly, and at the same time, we should show that we are prepared to accept the supra-national kind of organisation necessary to supervise such a zone. I should like to see an immediate proposal for a United Nations peace force, so that we might now set up facilities for recruiting and training such a peace force. Surely our experiences in the Congo have shown the need for an adequately trained and equipped United Nations force of this kind.
I do not suggest that these modest proposals of mine should take the place of any present disarmament proposals but what I have in mind is that I should judge we are about due for a recurrence of the Berlin crisis. Mr. Khrushchev must be under considerable pressure from his side to turn the heat on once more in Berlin. Again it is an indictment of Western political policy that he is in the position to raise the question

of Berlin again in isolation from the other great problems of Europe and of the world.
Nevertheless, I believe that on both sides of the Iron Curtain there would be considerable support for the view that an experimental zone for military control and a measure of disarmament should be proposed in Europe itself along the partition line of the Iron Curtain. I bear in mind the proposal some years ago in the Rapacki Plan and the variations which have followed it including the recent variation by Sir John Slessor in the book which I mentioned earlier.
I believe that if advocate, firstly, a zone in Europe, which after all is the most dangerous point in the world today, which should be an experimental zone where the Powers could try out in practice measures of arms control and disengagement. This would mean that there would have to be on-site inspection and of course the area would have to be selected to include possibly parts of West and East Germany, Berlin, and parts of Poland. We have got to start somewhere on armaments control, and disengagement somewhere.
Secondly, and parallel to this, one would like to see not only United Nations agencies set up in Berlin but a staff college to train the nucleus of a United Nations peace force. Let us recruit young people from all over the world dedicated to the cause of peace and perhaps to be the first United Nations citizens. Certainly at some stage of disarmament, whether under the very limited kind of scheme I have suggested or under some major scheme, international supervision inspection will be required and we should prepare for it now. Thirdly, in the second phase of this plan for disengagement in Europe, this United Nations peace force should be brought in to play its part, and in conjunction with inspectors from our side and the Russian side there should be supervision and control also by United Nations inspectors.
If this plan, or a variation of it, worked, surely it would contribute more towards building up a true groundwork of confidence and trust than anything else. Talking round a conference table will not in itself do it, as I am sure everybody appreciates. It is only by having a practical experiment somewhere


that we can test each others good faith, and if this kind of experiment succeeded, we would be immeasureably nearer achieving agreement on major disarmament and total disarmament, which we all seek. What one hopes to see from the West is some imaginative and realistic political proposal, as well as continuing the discussions on the technical problems involved in disarmament.
May I conclude with this saying in my native Welsh: Bid ben, bid bont. I hasten to translate it as "To be a leader, you have to be a bridge". There are three ways of building a bridge. One can build it from both banks simultaneously and meet somewhere in the middle. One can build it from the left bank until it reaches over to the right bank. One can build it from the right bank until it reaches the left. However one builds the bridge, its purpose in the end is to join the two sides together and to be a means of communication Surely, the circumstances of our world today demand that however little the other side are prepared to help towards the building of a bridge, we must not flag in our efforts to see that the bridge is built.

5.22 p.m.

Sir James Pitman: I am sure that everyone in the House will wish me to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) very sincerely indeed on his speech and on the lovely constituency which he has the honour to represent. We also welcome him to that fortunately very considerable group of people in this House to whom we all listen with very great attention, because what they say is always delivered in a good manner, with charm, is always well thought out and is always backed up by the right sentiments. The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought from the courts the head, hands and heart of a really good orator. His manner, his gesticulation and his ability to make himself heard were all that we would desire in this House. He has clearly thought out his points extremely well, and his heart, too, is in the right place. May I take the opportunity of saying how much the House appreciated his reference to his predecessor, Mr. Clement Davies, who stood for exactly what the hon. Member has been

saying today? Personally, I found myself in agreement with everything he said, and I should like to take one of his themes a little further.
It has been said this afternoon that this subject of disarmament produces ill-temper and frustration. It does not produce ill-temper across these two sides, only frustration; but it does produce both as between East and West, and we have seen already this afternoon enough of the frustration in seeking to find the reason why disarmament has been such a failure for so many centuries. Sometimes it is the Committee of Eighteen, sometimes the Summit meeting, sometimes it was over a hundred years ago, but never do we get past the frustration, because it seems to me that if we examine it we have to admit that we are chasing the wrong hare. We ought to be chasing the hare of security, whereas we tend to chase the hare of disarmament.
After all, security lies as the very root reason of armaments. Therefore, security must lie as the root reason for any disarmament which is to take place. We have only to go back to feudal times to realise that security was the very essence of the abandonment of the standing armies of the feudal lords. Until they were given by the central authority a security adequate to keep their castles as residential places undefended, they were not prepared to disband that which was requisite for their security. It is the same thing with the other countries of Europe. Nobody ever gives up that which is his concept of security until and unless he can be assured that alternative arrangements have been made for it. In the same way, we in this House used to hang our swords on the red tape which we still have, and we did not give up carrying our swords until the Commissioner of Police had built up a security institution which would give us security which was at least equal, and which, in point of fact, is a jolly sight more effective than the security which we were deceiving ourselves we were giving ourselves by our own feats of arms.
It seems to me perfectly clear that security institutions are the issue and that they must precede and not follow disarmament. Indeed, if we can supply


effective security, disarmament inevitably follows, but if we seek disarmament, security does not necessarily follow and consequently nor does disarmament come about. Relative disarmament, in which one country and another each agree to knock a certain percentage off their armaments, is not achieving security. It is achieving a relative armament on a lower and different scale, but it does not go to the real root of the problem which is to achieve security, absolute, not relative, security. It is not unreasonable to say that the man in the street believes that disarmament discussions are the worst enemies of disarmament, and that it is only when statesmen come to discuss security and how the world can achieve security that we are ever likely to make any progress towards disarmament.
Our plea then this afternoon is that we should begin to discuss the security institutions which should precede disarmament, and that we should give up for some time the discussions about disarmament in which no one is getting, or ever has got, anywhere.
The Minister of State has said that all the proposals on the Russian side are unrealistic, but the Russians may quite rightly say exactly the same thing, and, after all, is it not inevitable because all these disarmament discussions—and the report of the latest one runs to over 800 pages—are all doubletalk by those who insist that they be permitted to continue their own security arrangements? Is it not true that, without such a fresh security institution, no nation can, in signing a disarmament treaty, have anything but a determination to break that treaty if the necessity should require it and security should demand it?
No, what we shall get in the world sooner or later whether we like it or not is just such a central security institution. Sir Walter Elliot was brilliant on this point when he said that it was purely a question whether we would get it by the one or the other of the two major Power groups—East or West— becoming dominant over the other and the whole world, in which case their first action would inevitably be to set up a world security authority which would see that that security was never challenged again. Or else in the terms of the alternative which Walter Elliot put

forward we might achieve that solution in peace by intelligent planning rather than reach it after a major holocaust. I think the hon. Member for Montgomery and I are both pleading that the Minister of State should begin to think in terms of intelligent planning to achieve a world security institution which would give to nations that security without which they cannot possibly contemplate disarmament.
The second reason why these disarmament discussions are so nonsensical and frustrating is to be found in the sort of terminology that is used. The very words "detection" and "on-site verification" show how unrealistic disarmament is. In any civilised community we have detectives. Can we imagine such detectives being in a position of "detecting" a murder or a robbery and being able to do nothing whatever about it because they had no authority, no legal system and no means of doing anything about it when they had detected it? Can we imagine an on-site verification with a search warrant, a police officer finding all the evidence of a crime and yet, having found verification of a breach of the law, having to rub his hands of it altogether and say, "This is all too deplorable. We must pass a resolution about this but we cannot do anything about it"?
Let us examine the four points of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker)—whether we should have complete disarmament after four years or nine years, whether the manpower should be 2·1 million or 1·7 million, whether the "vehicles" should be cut to two-thirds or abandoned altogether and the question of inspection and control. All these four points become completely unrealistic in a context in which it remains definite that each nation has got to remain responsible for its own security and must be the judge in its own cause as to when, how and why it makes war. Unless there were to be created a World Security Institution there would be lacking the condition upon which any nation might even contemplate a compromise of its responsibility to secure itself. Every nation in signing any disarmament agreement must therefore make the tacit reservation that it will, if so compelled in its own judgment, abrogate unilaterally any such Treaty.
In the third place it is well to recognise that in these disarmament conferences there is necessarily lacking the requirement of confidence. In The Times of today there is a very good cartoon of President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev carrying out a tremendous experiment in destruction aimed at each other. Every month sees the balance of insecurity hoisted a little higher. When two or more people are sitting round a table how cam there be confidence when each knows with absolute certainty that both of them will leave that disarmament conference only to go and look at the blue print of some even more horrible weapon with which to destroy each other? Is it not a commonplace of peace negotiations that confidence cannot be achieved on such a two-party basis? A third party must be introduced into the proceed ings, a party in whom both sides may have some confidence, because they cannot possibly have confidence in each other?
What then are the stops arising from these three reasons why security and not disarmament should be the hare which all Governments should chase? We urge the Secretary of State to take steps, in complete accordance with what the Prime Ministers' Conference decided a year ago, to ask for a commission of the United Nations, consisting of say five, seven or any number of world-respected citizens one likes to suggest, to examine this problem of settling up a security institution. That security institution would not be the United Nations because that is an international body. It would be appointed and, if you like, sacked by the International body The United Nations, but it would be a world security authority and it would be a world body as distinct from being am international body.
I think our Government ought at the same time to pledge their promise that if anything were to come out of such a commission in a proposal for an effective institution which might ensure security for this nation, they would furnish bases throughout the world for that Institution, for what community is better able to supply world bases than the British Commonwealth? The Commonwealth Premiers have come out 100 per cent. in favour of it. The Government should, moreover, offer to help recruitment, and promise conditionally a

number of other actions designed to make a rule of law existent and a means of enforcing it effective.
From information that I have received, both East and West are agreeable in general terms to such a proposal but both have turned it down for the conflicting reason that supposedly the other will not have it. We seem to seek to say "This is the right thing, and our Commonwealth Premiers have said so, but the Russians will not accept it." When I contacted the Russians they seem to say "Yes, this makes sense but you people in the West will never accept it." In that context, may we not ask the Secretary of State at least to try what seems to be both a new and a hopefully positive approach, something which is quite different from all the frustrations and failures of the past, and see what can be done by seeking disarmament through security rather than security through disarmament.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) except to express my profound disagreement with his approach to this debate. I agree with him entirely that what is necessary is the creation or establishment of a world security authority, but to talk about establishing a world security authority in a world that is armed to the teeth with all the atomic weapons that are lying around today seems to me to show a lack of realism.
The Minister of State gave us a kind of progress report. It seemed to me to be somewhat depressing, but no doubt it was a realistic analysis of the difficulties which he and others have encountered during the months and years that the disarmament discussions have lasted. I wish him well in his continued attempts to make his contribution to the achievement of world disarmament which national leaders, not only of our own country but President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev, General de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer have emphasised is the most urgent and most important consideration in the world today.
When one realises that this debate has to be squeezed into about two and a half hours, it seems somewhat ironic that we should take the view that many of


us take, that this is of such great importance to humanity. I hope that the Minister of State will succeed in securing the agreement of other delegations to his proposal for an examination of the eleven points that he put forward two or three days ago. They seem to me to be a very good practical approach to this difficult problem, and I hope that some progress will be made along those lines.
I want to confine my remarks mainly the question of a test ban treaty which seems to me to be the most urgent requirement today. I find it difficult to know whether the failure of the three Governments to agree to a treaty is due to genuine scientific doubt as to the efficiency and effectiveness of existing monitoring systems or to political unwillingness to trust one another. The Indian delegate at the Geneva Conference has said that spurious scientific justification for not signing a test ban treaty is being adduced. I find it difficult to form an opinion on this allegation, as the full scientific facts axe being withheld from the public. In my view, the Government should publish the scientific facts and let the people judge for themselves.
The Minister of State a little while ago said that the latest reports of the scientists were being evaluated. I can only hope that when that evaluation is complete, world public opinion, and in this country in particular, will be given some information so that people can form their own views as to whether the trouble that faces us today is due to these scientific doubts or to political unwillingness.
The scientists should also tell us whether there is any connection between weather conditions and nuclear tests. There is a widespread view that the northerly and north-easterly winds that have been so prevalent this year are due to atmospheric disturbances resulting from the 48 Soviet explosions last autumn, followed by a smaller number of American explosions—

Mr. David James: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the volcanic explosion in Krakatoa in 1883 was still 100 times as great as any atomic explosion, and that no one with any scientific knowledge will give any credence to the

result of nuclear atomic explosions suggested by him?

Mr. Henderson: I am not talking about 1883. I am only asking for information. If the information is by reference to what took place in 1883, that is all right, but there is this widespread view, and the public want information—

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Krakatoa had just the same effect on the weather that now causes him concern?

Mr. Henderson: With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, that is all the more reason why we should have some statement from the Government, because there is a great deal of anxiety among people, not only because of the weather changes but because the nuclear tests are taking place at all.
Four years ago, the British, American and Soviet scientists were in broad agreement that all tests could be detected except those underground below a threshold of 4·75 kilotons. What is the position today with regard to on-site inspections? From what he said, I rather gathered that the Minister of State still feels that there is an insuperable barrier to a nuclear test agreement unless the Soviet Union are prepared to accept at least a limited number of on-site inspections.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of scientific support for the view that underground tests can be detected well below the threshold of 4·75 kilotons. That is certainly the view of the well-known United States scientist, Dr. Don Leet, and yesterday we were told by the science correspondent of the Sunday Times that a new British method of detecting underground nuclear tests has been achieved.
When the United States, British and Soviet scientists met in 1958, no detecting station had a range of more than 600 miles, and it was estimated that at least 180 recording stations would be required. We are now told that 20 stations would be enough, none of which need be on Soviet territory. Those stations would, apparently, have a range exceeding 1,400 miles. That constitutes a great advance, and I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman can


confirm that these scientific advances have been made.
Moreover, apart altogether from the possibility of detecting underground tests, there is a considerable body of opinion which thinks that they cannot achieve a break-through and are, to that extent, of little military value. That view is supported by Dr. Kissinger who, as the Minister of State knows, is one of President Kennedy's close scientific advisers.
I found myself very much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman when he told us of the refusal of the Soviet Government of all suggestions that their scientists should again discuss this question with the British and American scientists. The Minister said that the offer had been made on no fewer than 23 occasions. It is very difficult to understand why the Soviet Government should adopt this attitude; if the scientific facts are in accord with the views of their own scientists, I should have thought that to be all the more reason for the Soviet Government to allow their scientists to come into contact with the Western scientists.
As there seems to be broad agreement on the scientific side of detection, I urge Her Majesty's Government to accept the neutrals' proposals put forward on 16th April. When I intervened during the Minister's speech, he agreed that Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government had accepted them only as one of the bases of discussion, but I urge the Government to accept them as the basis of discussion, and to have them adapted and translated into the provisions of a draft treaty for the banning of all nuclear tests.
The main proposals have already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) in a very excellent and weighty speech, but I do urge the Government not to insist on making on-site inspections obligatory or mandatory in the case of a disputed event. As my right hon. Friend pointed out—and as I rather thought the right hon. Gentleman agreed—in the event of any of the three Governments, or any other Government, refusing to allow an international body of scientists to investigate an unexplained occurrence, the refusal would constitute an action justifying the abro-

gation of the treaty and a return to freedom of action in nuclear tests.
I believe that the neutral plan contains adequate safeguards, and if on-site inspection remains essential, as it was slated to be by the hon. Gentleman in Geneva last Monday, it should be by invitation. It should not be made mandatory, bearing in mind the ultimate sanction of an abrogation of the treaty in the event of a refusal to co-operate. I believe this to be sound sense. It may be that no advance will be made until the completion of the present United States test series, and the series announced yesterday by the Soviet Government, but I hope that the Minister of State will, on behalf of this country, pursue his efforts at Geneva to secure broad acceptance of the neutrals' proposals.
The achievement of a nuclear test ban treaty would be the psychological key to general disarmament. It would do more than anything else to dissipate the miasma of confusion, suspicion, and distrust that at present befogs the road to general world disarmament The signing of a nuclear test ban treaty is becoming the acid test of the sincerity of the three Governments represented at Geneva in seeking to achieve world disarmament. If they have the will to stop their nuclear tests, the neutrals' proposals provide them with the opportunity. Let us hope that they will face up to their responsibilities.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: Because the time at our disposal for the debate is very short, I want to be brief and confine myself to one point. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting arguments and suggestions. I first took an interest in the subject of disarmament in the early 1930s, when it was a constant subject before the ill-fated League of Nations. My interest in the subject was materially sharpened by my service in the Forces. It seemed to be very much more important to me after that.
The factor which has been constantly depressing to me personally throughout the whole history of discussion and debate on the subject of disarmament has


been that we have had a proliferation of committees but have achieved very little indeed. When I read the debates of the various committees, both before and since the war, I am reminded of the definition of a committee as a body composed of individuals who individually realise they can do nothing but who collectively meet together and decide that nothing can be done. This is rather what happens with the committees which are formed to try to solve this very difficult problem.
I believe that we are all aiming at the wrong target. I go some way to agreeing with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who said that we pay too much attention to the technical problems and not enough to the political or, I would say, the human problems. I do not think that it is any use at all concentrating on the techniques of disarmament, concentrating on how we are going to control arms, concentrating on the problem of whether we should have one million or two million conventional forces, or concentrating on the problem whether the means of delivering nuclear weapons should be destroyed, which seems to me to be almost impossible, unless we destroy all aeroplanes, all rocketry, and everything else.
This is quite the wrong approach. We must wake up to the fact that there is in all human beings a basic desire for conflict. It does not matter how we take away the means of making war; if we were to disarm the whole of the world tomorrow, the innate sense of conflict in human beings and, above all, knowledge could not be destroyed.
Let us suppose that we were able to arrive at an agreement which removed tomorrow all nuclear weapons and took away all conventional forces and reduced them purely to the small police forces we wish to have for our own internal security. If a cause for dispute arose between nations, in a very short time we should be back again exactly where we started, because knowledge cannot be destroyed. People would soon again be able to manufacture nuclear weapons. The recruitment of forces would start immediately. Some countries, perhaps having prepared for this occasion, would already have trained men who would be operating in para-

military or police forces. We should again be back in a world conflict, with those nations which had tried to abide by the disarmament agreements suffering a disadvantage.
This is the major problem. How are we to overcome it? How are we to change this apparent human desire to commit suicide? There is no doubt today that if any nation goes to war and it becomes a world war it is suicide for civilisation. Yet country after country —at least the major Powers, governments and peoples—are prepared to contemplate suicide in certain circumstances. How do we change this attitude of mind? We have not given enough attention to this problem. It is a psychological problem. I do not think that anywhere in the world, except in a very few research institutions such as there are in America and in some of the Scandinavian countries, have we got down to examining the basic causes of war as it arises out of the behaviour of human beings.
Although this is very long-term and does not really touch on the many technical points which have been debated this afternoon, we should take the initiative in setting up a research institution, utilising the research facilities which exist in the various universities of the world, to examine much more closely the pattern of human behaviour which leads to conflict and forces people against all common sense and logic to take up arms against each other. There are many universities in the world, especially those with seats which deal with subjects like psychology, social medicine, and so on. which would be quite prepared to undertake research of this nature. It is too big a problem to put on to any one organisation; the ramifications of this investigation and research are too wide for that. I am certain that, if we could initiate the idea of conducting research, spread amongst the universities and hospitals— there is already a very small body of medical research in this field—into the causes of human behaviour leading to war, it would go a long way towards the long-term solution of the problem of how we live at peace one with the other.
This is the only constructive contribution I can make to a subject which seems to defy any constructive contribution. I am certain that so long as we go on year


by year endeavouring to solve the problem purely by political and technical means we shall never succeed.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I am very tempted to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), but I must clearly do so very briefly. I want to take up his point that knowledge cannot be destroyed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not wish the impression to be created that he had been throwing doubts on the possibility of achieving general and complete disarmament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not spreading the old-fashioned idea that people can never be taught not to settle their disputes by force. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that not only can knowledge of the techniques of making weapons not be destroyed, but also the knowledge of what war itself can produce in terms of misery and senseless destruction cannot be destroyed.
We have had a cheering example in recent weeks of the fact that the knowledge, of what Facism means cannot be destroyed, because the younger generation was ready to make an emphatic protest at any threat of its resurgence. No one can destroy knowledge of the way in which progress has been made in our social structure at home, as we have learned to observe the rule of law, as we have agreed to settle private disputes through the process of law. There is the knowledge that we could have gone back to weapons, but there is also the knowledge that private assassination, private revenge, rick burning and machine wrecking are no longer the instruments of progress in the domestic affairs of nations.
Can we not hope that, after a few years' experience of the effect of a reduction of tension through disarmament, the working of the rule of law between nations and the economic advantages of disarmament will in turn have removed the tendencies of which the hon. Gentleman spoke?
When I learned how this debate had been restricted, I felt a certain sense of resentment that the Government themselves had not thought it right to offer ample time for a full day's debate and give their own progress report on this most important matter. However, the

Minister of State's speech reconciled me to the fact that he himself is in full command of the situation, that he has a proper understanding of what is going on in the negotiations, and that he is prepared to report it to us item by item.
In his speech the Minister of State answered many of the points which are often raised. He spoke with the relaxation of the experienced negotiator— appreciating, for instance, that individual items cannot be settled on their own merits, but that one thing must be balanced against another. However, one thing that shocked me was the statement in his concluding remarks that he did not think that he could offer much hope and that the prospects for general and complete disarmament are not encouraging.
This is astonishing. Perhaps it throws the ball is back to us, the ordinary back bench politicians. We have had a new situation, for the first time since the war, when the Russians and the Americans began to say at the same time that the arms race itself is the greatest cause of war. During the periods of alternation of views, first that tension had to be reduced before arms could be reduced and then that arms had to be reduced first before tension could be reduced, we had almost forgotten that fact which was accepted without question out of human experience, namely, that the arms race, apart from any cause of war, fed on itself. Other causes of conflict can be settled or can die down, but the arms race feeds on itself and increases the dangers almost hour by hour as fresh inventions are made and fresh competition entered into. And then there is a fresh imbalance. As long as research and development are going on, every kind of agreement that is reached with the maximum possible good will can be thrown out of balance by a new development or a new invention. It was an enormous step forward to get agreement that the arms race is itself the greatest cause of war.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) spoke of an essentially British contribution to these discussions. Most of the names who have contributed to an understanding of that aspect of the problem are British names. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that


they are names which come from the British Labour Party, but their views are by now generally accepted.
This is something where Britain ought to play a special rôle. The hon. Gentleman has no difficulties. All the great Powers are committed to the notion of general and complete disarmament. All the great Powers are committed to the idea that now it is easier to get agreement on universal and complete disarmament than on any partial scheme of disarmament, because a partial scheme offers the risk of an unbalance, of a change of balance from the stage from which one starts negotiations. Every political party is committed to it. Every faction in every political party in support of its own views on defence says that it is easiest to bring about universal and complete disarmament.
Everyone is agreed, so the Government ought to be treating this as a non-party non-controversial matter. They should be giving the same sort of propaganda to the public on it as on, say, road safety, as something which is beyond dispute except that we want to know the details. That perhaps is too broad a statement. I am not sure that we ought to know too many details. Although I complain that we do not debate this matter enough, we have also to remember that the most bitter reflection one can make about this subject is that over the last few years disarmament negotiations themselves have been used as a weapon in the cold war, and all too frequently used for that purpose rather than for any other.
I found in the hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon a refreshing change from that attitude. I commend him on it and hope that that attitude and the sort of quotations he and my right hon. Friend made from the speeches of the Foreign Secretary will dominate their negotiations. It is for diplomats to try things out, to bargain in private over the details and techniques of disarmament. They are rather like trade negotiations. One starts by being offered dried herbs and goose feathers and ends by getting bauxite or whatever it is one wants. One does not fill the newspapers with headlines about each stage of the negotiations.
It is for the politicians to be vigilant in seeing that these negotiations are not used as a weapon for hotting up the cold war instead of calming it down. We should reawaken public understanding to the fact that if one side or the other holds up a particular scheme it is likely that its objections are not to that particular scheme but to something else in the plan. My hon. Friends have been pleading this afternoon for a speedy test ban treaty. We all hope that that comes off. It would be a tremendous encouragement to everyone in the world, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) pointed out, the acid test is whether all the Powers are convinced that they will go all the way.
In my opinion, we shall not get a test ban agreement unless all the parties are convinced that we shall get a plan for total, complete and universal disarmament within a period of years. Otherwise there is the suspicion that a partial scheme is intended to give someone a breathing space. I am sure that this is connected with the question of on-site inspections and so on. There is the suspicion of espionage and that someone could get a quick look to see if this were the right moment to break an agreement, to call it off and to use escape clauses. We need to have an agreement which has not got escape clauses which would give someone a chance to call it off half way through because they believed they had a temporary advantage. If we accept that, and the Minister seems to be accepting it, it appears that the negotiations should be able to go much more smoothly than he suggested.
If he is to reply to the debate, I wish particularly to ask him a question. I want to know what the attitude of the Government is to the surprising conflict between a Russian proposal of 1·7 million conventional manpower forces and the United States counter-proposal of 2·1 million. For many years the usual argument was that if there were a ban on atomic weapons it would immediately give the Russians a tremendous advantage because of their enormous manpower. They would be stamping in their snowy boots all over Europe in a fortnight. Now when we get a proposal to reduce military manpower, the United States appears to answer with a stepping up of the figure.


If there is a genuine reason for that, surely it ought to be stated in public now because it looks like obstructiveness.
I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is connected with a view of the operability of N.A.T.O. In the course of these negotiations by stages, is the West regarding N.A.T.O. as something which works and can be surrendered only in toto? Is it a case of half a watch not being any good whereas half a loaf is usually considered as better than no bread? Is the idea that if once N.A.T.O. were broken it would collapse entirely? In other words, is it the view of the West that N.A.T.O. is a much more valuable counter in the bargaining than it would appear to be to the Russians? There must be some explanation which can enable this gap between the two sets of figures to be reconciled.
Attractive as it is—but certainly not to other hon. Members who want to take part in the debate—to cover item after item in these negotiations, is it not true that the task of the politicians at any rate is to establish confidence that peaceful co-existence is possible and will work? The Conservative Party has a great deal of experience of coming to terms with militant faiths throughout history. Richard Coeur de Lion knew when to come to terms with Islam before settling down at Dubrovnik. We on this side of the House have enough experience and judgment to recognise the right moment.
If there is to be a challenge, surely this is the challenge to the conflict which the hon. Member for Wycombe spoke of. Is it not an extraordinary and terrifying thought that people axe prepared to go to war in defence of something which both sides believe in equally passionately? If we ask someone in the West what it is they particularly detest in the other side they will say that it is tyranny, exploitation and lack of personal freedom. If we ask a Communist what it is he particularly detests about the system of capitalist society, he will give exactly the same answer—it is tyranny, exploitation and the restriction of individual freedom.
If we ask those on either side what it is they are prepared to die for in their system, they will say exactly the same thing. They will say that it is the opportunity for their children to achieve the

maximum release of human personality and individual freedom. Would the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State accept that? That is the real challenge of competitive co-existence—the race for human freedom. The osmosis of ideas is going on the whole time, each side trying to find the clues to the mysterious success of the other side and trying to reach the same result.
If that is what humanity is really striving for, we need not fear the challenge of co-existence and competition. We must accept that the arms race in itself is the danger we have to face, not the threat that men want to destroy each other. It is the arms race itself which we must conquer. The contribution which politicians have to make is to see that this treaty when it is signed is not something Which provides a temporary truce, not a bargain made among the haves at the expense of the have-nots, but a step towards a system which does not block the continuous evolution of social change in all parts of the world on the lines which the inhabitants of those areas desire for themselves.
That is the biggest problem of all, but it is the problem on which politicians of all parties and in all parts of the world ought to concentrate—how we can guarantee that a pact to replace individual national armaments by a supreme world rule of law will not choke the legitimate aspirations of the underdeveloped countries towards the evolution of a free and independent system of their own.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David James: To my surprise and gratification, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Paddingtan, North (Mr. Parkin)—particularly when he said that my right hon. Friend the Minister knew so much about the subject that there was not a great deal for back bench Members to add. The only point on which I disagree with him is his suggestion that the debate has been on party lines. I do not think that it has followed any such pattern. The only person with whom I have been in violent disagreement while sitting here throughout the debate is my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman). I do not think that this has been a party political debate.
Like all other hon. Members, I have a tremendous respect for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker). All of us know the work which he has done for peace. To show how uncontroversial the debate has been, I was to some extent moved by his tribute to the work being done by the Foreign Secretary at this time. We are all in the same boat in this matter and subject to the same dangers. This has been widely recognised.
The only point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which alarmed me was when it appeared to me that he took the view that it would be marvellous to get an agreement at Geneva— with which I agree; indeed, so marvellous that we should pay almost any price to get it. He is obviously aware that the nub of the problem is the importance of verification. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice, but he seemed to be prepared to chance his arm on this.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I thank the hon. Member for what he said. If he is referring to my remarks about a test ban, I think it extremely improbable that we Shall get a test ban, because I do not believe that the Treasury Bench will change its point of view. A test ban would not last long unless we had a treaty of general disarmament. But I have said nothing of the kind about general disarmament; there, I said repeatedly this afternoon, that adequate, real inspection, is indispensable to a result.

Mr. James: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put me right. I should have made it plain that I took him up in the context of nuclear tests. I still believe that even in this respect, unless we are able to have a built-in system of verification and control we are risking not only our own lives, which are getting on, but those of our children.
I am sorry that there has been no specific C.N.D. contribution to the debate.

Mr. Tom Driberg: That will come later.

Mr. James: It has always seemed to me that the nuclear disarmers assume a mantle of righteousness.

Mr. Driberg: No.

Mr. James: They take their point of departure from us in that they claim that they are so virtuous that they want to live and that I am such a perfect "b.f." that I do not want to live, nor do I want my six children under the age of 11½ to grow up. I am glad that we have not had to deal with that type of recrimination in the debate.
I should like, in passing, to compliment the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on his speech. I know that the Leader of the Liberal Party was not in the House when he spoke.

Mr. J. Grimond: He was.

Mr. James: I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's new recruit.

Mr. Llywelyn Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made three mis-statements in the last moment. He should check his references.

Mr. James: I have not made three misstatements, but with my new spectacles I misread my notes. One is reluctant ever to disagree with a statement in a maiden speech, particularly one of such ability, but I was alarmed by the hon. Member's suggestion that the danger of nuclear tests continuing was far greater than the imbalance which might be created by unilateralism. We have the whole of history to which to appeal in order to know that if any society or civilisation abandons its defences it is heading for disaster.
The archaeological work going on in the Indus at present goes to show that a highly civilised but unarmed society of which we know very little was completely obliterated by the Aryins streaming down from the south in B.C. 2000. I suggest that if the Grecian cities had been prepared to form a Peloponnesian Common Market and had been prepared to form something equivalent to the North Atlantic Community, the Parthenon might still be standing upright today instead of being a monument to former greatness.
We cannot afford to let the balance get out of step. That is the greatest danger of all to peace. My concern is not about any individual weapon, because I believe that it would be as unpleasant and painful to be killed by


a bow and arrow as by a nuclear bomb. My concern is for the preservation of peace.
If there were time I should be tempted to have a detailed meteorological argument with the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). The fact remains that there have been about ten volcanic eruptions over the last 2,000 years far more violent than any atomic bomb which has ever fallen. There have been atomic bomb tests, as we all regret; but all one can say is that the British weather changes.
I hope that my hon. Friend, in winding up the debate, will confirm that the overwhelming balance of scientific and meteorological opinion suggests that whatever else nuclear testing does, it has absolutely no effect on the weather. That point was made in a letter to The Times by Fred Hoyle, three years ago, when we had one of our best summers for many years. In his letter he wondered how many people were blaming the weather on the atomic bomb tests during that summer.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.

Sir J. Pitman: Shame.

Mr. James: I did not realise that my hon. Friend was sitting behind me. I disagreed with him when he suggested that detection was comparable with detectives and that site inspection would be similar to the position of the policeman knowing where a burglary had taken place but having no opportunity to prosecute the known delinquents. This seems to me to be a false analogy, with great respect, and putting the cart before the horse. Surely what we have to do is to create a system of trust between nations, first, and then to get world government—not to try to get world government and to superimpose it on the existing nuclear situation.
I believe that the situation is changing dramatically behind the scenes. For the last fifteen years science, in a sense, has not been on our side, for every year has seen more appalling weapons of destruction created and every year there has seamed less likelihood of agreement on the knotty problem of supranational investigation and control. There now

appear to be two possibilities, and I am aware that both are very much around the corner.
The first is that modern seismographic detection may improve to such an extent that within the next eighteen months it is not necessary to have people physically going round to see whether bangs are going off. Secondly, I should like to believe that in the next two years photography and rocketry will have improved to the extent that it will be possible on an international basis to have a complete knowledge, through satellite rockets, of what is going on in every country.
I do not believe that we are getting anywhere at the moment in the disarmament talks, simply because the Russians do not want to do business. I do not want to criticise them or to analyse the reasons; I think that partly they are soared and partly they still think that they can win a trick. But if we achieved a situation within the next two years an which international inspection and control was not necessary because of improved seismographic work and improved photography, then the situation might well resolve itself.
I hope that when he goes back to Geneva tonight or tomorrow, my hon. Friend will go on talking and talking, because as long as he talks there is hope. Before he does that, however, he was asked a question by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), which it is certainly not my business to answer, and so, no doubt, we will hear from my hon. Friend at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Godber.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If those who have not succeeded in speaking so far in this short debate were to seek to catch your eye at a later stage after other agreed subjects have been disposed of, may I take it Chat that would be in order and, also, that if the Minister of State cannot reply—we know that he has to return to Geneva—one of (his colleagues may be present to do so?

Mr. Speaker: As far as possible, I try to meet the convenience of the House. I cannot answer for the Minister; I am sure that he will answer that.


I think that the best way is to proceed as the hon. Member has described, to deal with the next debate on the North-East, and then go back to disarmament at some grisly hour of the morning.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I apologise to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I should like to have been here to hear the hon. Member's speech, but I understood that we were supposed to conclude this debate by 6.30. I have to catch an aircraft this evening. I will, however, make such inquiries as I can and certainly I will read the hon. Member's speech carefully in HANSARD and take note of it.
I should like, first, to pay my tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and to say how much we all enjoyed hearing him. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not present to hear this tribute, but I am sure that the Leader of his party will be happy to convey my words to him. We all very much enjoyed not only what the hon. Member had to say, but his manner of delivery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) made an interesting speech, in which he attached considerable importance to a world security organisation. I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on the subject. As we proceed with our discussions on general and complete disarmament it is essential that we should build up a United Nations peace force. As to how that would be controlled is a matter that we shall have to consider. The United Nations peace force is one of the eleven topics which I enumerated to the House which I have put forward at Geneva and I hope that we shall be able to get into detailed discussion of it.
As we proceed with the disarmament process, in so far as we are not absolutely certain that verification has checked every detail, it becomes increasingly important to get an adequate form of security in some other means, which can only be provided by a United Nations peace force. Therefore, to the extent that one does not have complete confidence in verification measures, the importance of the peace force becomes more and more highlighted. This is an

important aspect which must not be forgotten.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) asked one or two questions. I will not go into the question of the weather; I have no facts to give about it. On the question of detection of nuclear tests, however, the right hon. and learned Member brought out the fact that the experts' report in 1958 agreed that it was possible to detect underground seismic events over a magnitude of 4·75. The important thing is to distinguish between detections and identification. The experts did not say that those events could be identified; some of them could be but not all. The latest scientific information, which is still being evaluated, leads us to believe that we should be able still to detect not only down to 4·75, but lower, and possibly with a smaller number of stations.
The difficulty is not so much detection, but identification. I hope very much that it will be shown that we can identify considerably more, but I have no evidence that it will be possible to identify nearly all incidents. In fact, I believe that a considerable number would be left. That illustrates the need to have a quota at least of on-site inspections, which has not been eliminated by the latest findings.

Mr. Roy Mason: Concerning detection and recognition of small explosions, if there is an area of disagreement because an explosion is a small one and has taken place underground, what military value would there be below a magnitude of 4·75?

Mr. Godber: Below 4·75 there are certain advantages, particularly in relation to trigger devices and the like. I am not emphasising this, however. There are a certain number of explosions in the range of about 4·75 in relation to identification on which we can still not be sure. I prefer to await the precise evaluation of the latest information which we will bring forward and make use of at the earliest possible moment in Geneva.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman advised us to accept and to adapt the eight-Power proposals into a treaty. In some degree, that is what we have been


doing. We have been seeking to develop them, to analyse them and to build them up into something which could approximate to treaty language. This, however, is where we have been frustrated by the Soviet Union's refusal to enter into detailed discussions of any of these three basic factors.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would it not be possible for the draftsmen of the Foreign Office to take the neutrals' proposals and turn them into a draft treaty and put it on the table at Geneva?

Mr. Godber: That is one possible way of dealing with the situation, but we must be confident that what we seek to do will stimulate a response. We are seeking to develop new treaty proposals. We have tried to develop the eight-Power proposals from the beginning and to build up from there. The eight Powers have said that they are not prepared themselves to interpret their proposals; they look to the three nuclear Powers to do so. We have sought to do this but have been frustrated by the Russians in our attempt. However, we shall continue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) thought I was too gloomy in my conclusions, but it is no good pretending to the House that present prospects are better than they are. We moist continue to seek to work out an agreement, and that is our intention. When, however, the hon. Member talks about British names being involved and claiming that they came from the Labour Party, I am happy to give credit where it is due, but the hon. Member should not forget the work of Lord Robert Cecil, who, also, did a certain amount as well.
The hon. Member dealt with the Russian proposal for manpower of 1·7 million as opposed to the United States proposal of 2·1 million and asked why the United States figure was higher. The real reason, I believe, is because, geographically, Russia is embodied in one unit and can move her forces much more quickly. I have already said at the Geneva conference, however, that I do not believe that the difference between these two figures need be decisive in any problem. I believe that this matter should be negotiable; that is my strong view. I do not think, therefore, that we need attach unduly high importance to

it. It is these other factors which I tried to spell out in opening the debate which, I believe, are the keynote.
I have tried to deal with some of the questions which have been raised and am grateful to hon. Members for their suggestions. I assure the House that the Government will continue in every way possible to move the negotiations forward, both on the major principle of general and complete disarmament and on the more narrow but highly concentrated question of nuclear tests.

Orders of the Day — MISS CARMEN BRYAN

6.29 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: One of the great attributes of this House is that we can turn from very large issues to what seem to be rather small personal issues, but in this case we are turning our attention for a short time to deal with something which though it is, on the face of it, a small personal case, raises, as I think the whole House realises, very great and grave principles. There are two sides to it. I shall be as brief as I can, since our time is limited, but I must say a word about each of them. The first one is the personal case of Miss Carmen Bryan; the other is the great issue of how we are to operate the new and, for some of us, hateful Commonwealth Immigrants Act which we passed so recently.
The case of Miss Bryan has outraged a very large section of liberal public opinion. I shall not hide—it would be silly to do so—the fact that I have had a large post, most of which is bitterly hostile, almost all of it full of hate and prejudice; and it is the very fact that people, many of them, no doubt, quite decent people, can write in those tones that makes me, speaking for myself, quite determined to stand up in this case and be counted. This is exactly what we have seen happen before in the world. It is decent people who get misled, it is decent people who let themselves go; and it is because of that that we end up with the intolerable situation we saw happen in Germany, certainly and elsewhere, not so long ago.
The case has been dealt with in what I am sure the House realised last week is the most outrageous way. We were


all very glad when the Home Secretary, on Friday, agreed to reconsider his attitude of the previous day. We all paid our tribute to him then for having done so. I certainly hope we shall be able to pay our tribute to him later this evening on going a little further. We shall know about that shortly, but when I heard the Minister say, on Thursday, that he was not prepared to reconsider the case I was absolutely shocked. That had nothing to do with a partisan attitude: it seemed to me to be a terrible attitude for a Home Secretary to take when an individual's liberty was involved. However, he did reconsider it, and we now have this brief opportunity to discuss the matter.
This is, I gather, not the first time that a deportation order has been signed and put into effect There has been an earlier one, but that did not concern one of our friends from the West Indies, but an Australian. The circumstances, I have ascertained, were totally different. That man's previous criminal record would have made him subject to a different part of the Act, which would have kept him out had his record been known and had the Act been in operation. Therefore, I cannot quote that as an instance in relation to this case. There are, I gather, 40 or 50 cases already pending, and I must say that it begins to look as though the judicial benches are applying the recommendation to deport almost as a matter of course. This is so contrary to what was said from the Government side would be the intention of the Act that, again, is a tremendously important reason for raising the matter now.
The history of the case is this. I shall deal with the personal side first. We have a young woman of 22 years of age who came here in 1960, who worked for quite a long time in a welding factory, fell ill, had an operation, lost her job because of her inability to go back to it for physical reasons, sought later other work, in particular clerical work, since she was learning typing, and found herself unable to get another job in that field. Then—let us not gloss over it—she engaged in a piece of petty larceny from a store, and was before the court on 12th June.
I am in a difficulty, speaking as a layman, but my hon. Friend the Member

for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Braddock) tells me from her long experience that a conditional discharge, since at a little time later it became expunged from the records if there is no subsequent offence, is, in fact, technically not a conviction. However, she was, if one likes to put it that way, technically convicted, but, in the circumstances of the case, given a conditional discharge. She had no previous criminal record from what I hear.
To the conditional discharge, which, if it was a conviction at all, was only technical, was added this remarkable business of a recommendation for deportation, and the same circumstances had occurred in other cases of which I now have the details.
Miss Bryan was then taken straight off to prison. She had been on bail before the court hearing. She was not put on bail after, while the Home Secretary decided whether to deport—because the court does not deport; it recommends, and the Home Secretary decides whether to deport. She was taken off to prison and kept there. As I read the Act, not only the court but the Home Secretary may provide for bail, for release, and I ask why, in this case, it was not done, why she was kept there?
What happened was this. It then took six weeks for the Home Secretary to do anything, and, indeed, he did not do anything at the end of it, until there was a row in the House. He may have taken six months or six years and, meanwhile, she would, apparently, have stayed there. I am bound to ask: why this extraordinary procedure—if she was to be in there, why did it take the Home Secretary so long to do anything about it?
It was four weeks before anybody was told anything about it. There was no reference in those four weeks to the High Commission. Repeatedly, during the passage of the Act, it was said that we would certainly not treat Commonwealth citizens worse than we treat aliens, but in the case of aliens, I have ascertained, it is the ordinary drill that a reference is immediately made to the embassy of the national concerned. In this case no reference was made to the Jamaican High Commission Office, and I gather, after inquiries, that there is no drill for an automatic notification when one of their people is involved.
I do not want—and they do not want me—to make relations difficult for them, and they told me that subsequently the Home Office officials helped them as much as they could and that their relations with the Home Office were good, but I cannot shirk my duty of pointing out that in this case, and not only in this one case, but in all the cases— accidentally, I am sure—we are treating Commonwealth citizens far worse than we are treating or have been treating aliens. Clearly, the whole procedure wants looking into.
During that four weeks during which the High Commission knew nothing about her and were not in touch with her Miss Bryan was never told what her rights were; she was never told she could appeal against the deportation order. She had pleaded guilty, so pleading against the conditional discharge was pointless, but she was never told she could appeal against the deportation order. Only she appears to have been told of a number of things that might happen to her if—you know—she did not fit in. Miss Bryan was very frightened, very worried. She thought that she was not only up against the law here, but that her friends, her own people, had deserted her, since no one came to her.
I think that, quite apart from Miss Bryan, we must really ask the Minister to look into the procedure under which the Department is operating to see that there is immediate notification—of the High Commission, in this case—and to see that proper instructions are issued to those whose job it is to see that these people are told exactly what their opportunities are and their rights are under the Act.
We want to know why nothing happened during those four weeks, why the matter just sat lonely and idle on somebody's desk. This does raise a large and very important issue. The Minister last week relied heavily on the fact that the girl had petitioned the Home Office to be allowed to go home, and he went so far as to imply that he was trying to be fair, to be kind, in doing what Miss Bryan asked, and that she asked to be deported, and that that was best in her own interests.
The petition exists. There is no doubt about it. Through the Minister's

courtesy I have seen it. Let us remember that the girl had been there four weeks. She had seen nobody. She had had no advice. Then she was told, "Speed up your return home, and then you will be able to get out of this place and go back." What would any hon. Member expect her to do? Also, would she have made a petition had she been either on bail while the case was considered or in touch with her friends and her own people from the High Commission?
There is an additional problem. When the High Commission found out about it, messages were sent—telephone and written messages. But I am told that none of them got through to the girl. Right up to the point when she came out after six weeks she still had not had them. I do not suggest that anybody had been wantonly cruel or wickedly difficult, but there was in this case— and so I guess it may be so in a lot of other cases—a complete administrative breakdown which must be looked into.
To complete this personal part of the case, may I say that I have seen the girl. she is engaged to be married to a man who is working as a welder and who has, so far as I can gather, a good record. I have asked the girl—I ask the House to take my word for it, because it was not done in the presence of witnesses— whether she had been told by anybody she had seen since she came out of prison to change her mind from the petition, she told me, with the gay smile these people tend to have, "No, that is not so at all."
I told her, "Go away and write me in your own hand a letter telling me what you want me to know about your staying here or going home." I have the original letter here and a typewritten copy which I am happy that the Minister should have, although I have already told him the content. I will read it exactly as it is written:
Since I have been out of prison I have felt much better and would be very glad if I would be allowed to stay here in England. And most of all, I am very thankful for all the people who have tried their best to help me. When I was in prison I was so depressed that I did not know my own mind and I thought it would be much better to leave the prison and go home rather than staying there. But now that I am out I feel much better.
Miss Bryan does not want to go home. She wants to stay here. She wants to


marry her fiance. Any suggestion of relying upon "her wish" or, as the Minister said on Thursday, in HANSARD, c. 639, "acting in her interest", I have no doubt whatever does not now apply. It should be on the basis of her own words and her own conduct The Minister can check that for himself.
So the issue here is not whether she wants to go, as the Minister suggested, and whether we should distort the process of law to enable her to go freely. I thought it was rather peculiar to suggest that we should operate our law in order to provide free passages for anyone who otherwise could not afford to go home, which was really the implication of what was said. The real issue is whether the Home Secretary should deport her. I suggest that the answer must be, "No".
I will not go into what the Act says, but the definition in Section 6 (1) is clear. It says:
This Part of this Act shall have effect
as regards those citizens
who are convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment and recommended by the court for deportation.
It might be said that this is technically an offence punishable in certain circumstances with imprisonment. But let us now look at what was said about it. It is perfectly true that the magistrates are covered by the law—one understands that—and not by ministerial saying. However, we are dealing not with magistrates, but with the Minister in the exercise of his discretionary power. The Minister surely has to take into account what was said by his ministerial colleagues when the Act was passing through Parliament.
As one might expect, the then Home Secretary, on 7th February, was careful. He was referring to what had been said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and others. He said:
It only remains for me to say that the power will be exercised with the utmost care and reticence.
He said later, having described that it would operate only on the recommendation of a court following conviction for an offence:
 It is, therefore, carefully hedged about and much more carefully phrased than in

the case of the aliens legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 517.]
It has, in fact, been used much more carelessly than in the case of the aliens legislation.
As one would also guess, the present Lord Chancellor was much more careful than the Home Secretary. In answering some of my hon. Friends, he said:
It does not advance the case one way or another to draw attention to offences of a trivial character which, in certain circumstances, could be followed by a sentence of imprisonment, because I do not believe that any court anywhere in the country would ever consider deporting someone for offences of that character. I share the view of hon. Members opposite that deportation is a serious matter and must flow from very serious misconduct. I accept those two propositions."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 540.]
A little later he again emphasised that it was a matter for dealing with "serious cases which warranted deportation."
There was then the Lord Chancellor, in the Upper House, who first referred to it as a matter of "serious misconduct" only, but then went on to set out a whole list of the cases for which the Government wanted it. He made it perfectly plain that the reference was to cases such as assaults of certain kinds, repeated offences of soliciting for purposes of prostitution, brothel keeping and related offences. There is nothing in that which has anything to do with a first offence for shoplifting or a conditional discharge.
For good measure the Lord Chancellor said, a little later, that he did not want to accept an Amendment which someone else had moved because if he accepted it it would bring in a single case of soliciting, and he said that the one thing we did not want to do was to bring in a single case of soliciting. Do we want to bring in a single case of shoplifting involving £2 worth of goods and a conditional discharge?
It seems to me that if the Minister were to persist in this deportation order he would be in serious default of all the undertakings and assurances given by all his colleagues. I also ask him to think of the consequences. This could build up into something enormous. It could rock the boat in a host of cases. Also,


it would introduce undesirable consequences on both sides—concerning people who want to find a way out and people with whom we ought not to interfere at all.
I ought not to say any more than that. Other hon. Members will add to it. But I would make certain propositions to the Minister. First, now that it has been shown that the girl has not asked to go home and does not want to go home, and that she was grossly treated during the six weeks, for whatever reasons, the Home Secretary must now, in justice, rescind the order. There are no grounds for maintaining it.
Secondly, I ask the Home Secretary to suspend all the other orders while a review is made of the way in which the Act is being operated. It looks as though magistrates are making these recommendations much too freely, and this ought to be looked into. Thirdly, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole purpose and intention of the Act. Fourthly, I ask him to issue some new administrative regulations which will ensure that these Commonwealth citizens of ours—I admit that the law has now been made; I am not now seeking to get round it; I am admitting that the majority of the House had its way—who are caught under this law, whether rightly or, as I believe, in this case, wrongly, know about their rights and are humanely and properly treated, and that we shall have no more cases of Commonwealth citizens being treated worse than aliens because of an administrative breakdown.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure us tonight that he will be able to do those four things and thus show himself to be so much more humane than some of us feared on the previous occasion.

6.49 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I took an interest in this question on Friday. There are two points. First, there is the individual case, and, secondly, there is the working of the new Act. As the right hon. Gentleman has given the detailed history so clearly, I do not intend to go over it again.
It was very generous of my right hon. Friend to agree to look into the matter again. I hope that in doing so he will look into the working of the whole Act, as the right hon. Member for Belper suggested. It must be remembered that my right hon. Friend was not responsible in any way for the Act. His predecessor was responsible for it. It has been very difficult for my right hon. Friend to take over in these circumstances. It may be—I do not know—that the deportation order had already been signed by the previous Home Secretary. There have been a considerable number of changes, and it is not easy for a Minister to take over a number of cases like this. Therefore, I think that it was a very good thing that he agreed to look into the matter again.
I, too, have received, even as a result of my one question, an enormous number of letters. I fear that this will bring up the whole racial question again. Therefore, this debate is particularly important and the reply of my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, help to quiet the fear that justice may not be done in the future.
I agree with the Act and I supported it because I was told that it would be interpreted in a liberal manner. Personally, I think that the decision about the Australian was correct, but the decisions in the 80 other cases that are waiting will cause some anxiety. The Act was made to deal with those who seriously offended. This, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper said, was a conditional discharge. In other words, if this girl had been deported she could not have carried out the instructions of the magistrates because she would not have been in the country to undertake them, so it was an illogical decision of the magistrates anyhow. I understood that deportation was for really grave offences. I agree that it was not possible to lay down in the Act what constitutes a grave offence, but I think that in this House we all have in our minds what are really grave offences. Although I should not like to say that shoplifting is a trivial offence, this happened to be a first offence by this girl under rather difficult circumstances, and I think that these facts must be taken into consideration.
If this girl had been detained in prison for six years, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it would not have been possible to deport her, because a resident in this country for five years cannot be deported. This is a point which needs looking into concerning the future of this Act. I think that the magistrates in this case should have bound over the girl on her own surety and have left the matter there. What worries me is the future working of the Act. There are 80 cases awaiting the decision of the Home Secretary. One has to remember that, although the courts have the right to recommend people for deportation, the final decision is with the Home Secretary.
I suggest, following on what the right hon. Gentleman said, that there should be perhaps a discussion with the Magistrates' Association and others as to the working of the Act. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would he possible for him to appoint a panel of advisers to deal with these cases in the future. I do not think that in dealing with his many other duties my right hon. Friend has the time to go into the details of every case. Obviously, the final decision must be his, but I suggest that in working out the Act some panel of advisers would be of great help to him. I hope that, in view of the circumstances and the feeling in the House, my right hon. Friend, whom we know has a very liberal mind and is very helpful in a great many cases, will be able to consider this case, for which he was not, I am sure, responsible, and that he will set up a new guiding light for the treatment of these cases in the future.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: In the course of the discussion in Committee on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on 7th February last, I moved an Amendment the effect of Which would have been that a recommendation for deportation could be made only for an offence triable on indictment. I pointed out that if the power was left to the magistrate to make a recommendation for offences punishable with imprisonment, many offences of a trivial character would be included. I quoted cases involved small amounts in charges of larceny and embezzlement

which might envolve the serious question of a recommendation for deportation. A considerable debate followed.
The present Lord Chancellor, the then Attorney-General, resisted the Amendment. He thought it better that the magistrates should have the power, and he pointed out that one of the reasons was that there might be more cases for committal if the Amendment were carried, and thereby the machinery of the law would be clogged. He said directly in answer to me:
It does not advance the case one way or another to draw attention to offences of a trivial character which, in certain circumstances, could be followed by a sentence of imprisonment, because I do not believe that any court anywhere in the country would ever consider deporting someone for offences of that character. I share the view of hon. Members opposite that deportation is a serious matter and must flow from very serious misconduct. I accept those two propositions.
He gave an example of cases in the magistrates' courts where it would have been proper to make a recommendation for deportation. The cases he gave were:
… repeated offences of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, brothel keeping and related offences of that character …
He went further than that, and said:
I assure the Committee that we have given considerable thought to this matter. We believe that the Bill is right about it. It must be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Unless it comes within that category, there can be no recommendation by any court. I cannot think that there is any prospect of any court ever being asked to consider a recommendation unless it is a serious case by a man of bad character, and I am sure that it would be carefully considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 540ߝ2.]
He said various other things with which I do not want to trouble the House, but those were the words that he used. He was pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and he then gave an assurance that he would reconsider it. As a result of that assurance I withdrew the Amendment.
Now we have the case of a girl of 22 years of age who has been here since 1960, punished in this way with a recommendation for deportation for a first offence of petty larceny, shoplifting in respect of a sum of £2. I say to the House that that is entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the reply made by


the then Attorney-General and the assurance which he gave, upon which I withdrew my Amendment.
During the course of the Bill we relied again and again upon protestations by the then Home Secretary that the Act would be administered in a humane way. I ask the House what is the value of the promise made by a Home Secretary when he is followed by another Home Secretary who repudiates it? I know what has been said by the Home Secretary regarding shoplifting as being a serious offence. Of course, it is a serious offence in some cases.
It may be a case where there are many previous convictions, but if the Home Secretary proceeds, in Miss Bryan's case, to carry out an order for her deportation, I submit that he will be guilty of a gross breach of faith and that the House will have been deceived with regard to the assurance solemnly given when the Act was before it.

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): It may be convenient if I intervene now. I need not spend much time on the facts of the case, because on Friday I gave the main facts and they are on record in HANSARD. In order to inform myself as fully as I possibly could, over the weekend I have had a talk with the magistrate who heard the case and I have also had a talk with representatives of the Jamaican authorities who have been in touch with Miss Bryan.
Miss Bryan came to England just about two years ago. It seems that it was her mother who urged her to do so; she herself was not very keen. She was out of work for the first three months after her arrival. After that, as the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, she had two jobs, each of which she held for a number of months, and she also unfortunately suffered a good deal of illness. She lost her last job in February and for three months she was again out of work and receiving National Assistance.
On 4th June she was in court charged with shoplifting. She pleaded guilty and asked for another offence to be taken into account. She was then remanded in custody. The right hon. Gentleman was misinformed in saying that she was allowed bail. She was remanded in

custody until 12th June. On that date she came up in court again. The magistrate, she having pleaded guilty, gave her a conditional discharge and recommended her for deportation. I am in no doubt that he considered his decision carefully. This was the first case under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to come before him.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: . Let us get the record right. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on thai occasion the magistrate refused bail?

Mr. Brooke: I am coming to that, but it was not really a question of bail.
I have spoken to the magistrate. I thought that the House would wish me to do that. He had certainly considered his decision carefully—the more carefully because this was the first case under the new Act which had come before him. She seemed not to have settled down successfully over here, and he judged that it would be better for her in all the circumstances if she were to be back in Jamaica. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those, I think, were the reasons why he recommended her for deportation.
As he was recommending deportation he deliberately refrained from fining her in addition for the offence to which she had pleaded guilty, and instead gave her a conditional discharge. A person recommended for deportation remains in custody thereafter unless the court orders his or her release pending deportation, which in this case the magistrate did not do.
There are two facts which at this point I should like to bring to the attention of the House. The first is that under the Act the Home Secretary can order a deportation only on the recommendation of a court. That is different from the case of aliens. Commonwealth citizens are treated more favourably. In the case of an alien there is no such restriction on deportation.

Mr. Charles Royle: Has the Home Secretary authority to release the offender on bail in spite of the fact that the magistrate has not granted bail?

Mr. Brooke: That is so. Under the Act, the Home Secretary has that right.
The second point I should mention is that the Act ensures to every Commonwealth citizen who is recommended for deportation a right of appeal against the recommendation. In this case, therefore, Miss Bryan had a right of appeal within 14 days which she could have exercised but did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am satisfied that her right of appeal was fully explained to her on at least two occasions. There can be no doubt whatever that she knew all about her right of appeal.

Mr. Fletcher: Again to complete the record, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what Miss Bryan has told me— that she applied for legal aid in order to appeal and was told that it could not be granted to her for that purpose?

Mr. Brooke: I am quite satisfied that that is not the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that it will be helpful if I continue my speech, because I have informed myself extremely fully about what happened.
No decision about making a deportation order can be taken by the Home Secretary before the expiry of 14 days in such a case as this. That is obvious, because he must give time to see whether there is to be an appeal. The 14 days in this case expired on 26th June. I am advised that normally—I say "advised" because I have been Home Secretary only a week, so I have to rely on the information I receive in matters like this —in the case of an alien, the Home Secretary would quickly reach his decision as to whether or not to make a deportation order. But there has been, until now, no experience of Commonwealth cases, and that I think was the reason, as I explained to the House on Thursday, why an unusually long time elapsed before a decision was reached in Miss Bryan's case.
The week before last, she decided to submit a petition to the Home Secretary. I have that petition here. In it she said she had no relatives in England, and that she was not against being deported because she could not keep in good health here and it was always difficult for her to get a job. That, in fact, confirms a statement which she had made to the Prison Reception Board when she first went into prison at the very outset

—a statement that all she wanted to do was to go back to Jamaica.
She said in the petition that her mother was in Jamaica but could not afford to send her money for her fare home, and she herself had not the money either. The object of her petition was to beg that she should be sent back to Jamaica as quickly as possible.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to give the wrong impression. I cannot remember the exact words, for I read the petition only once—and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in letting me see it—but as I remember it she said that she did not want to stay in prison.

Mr. Brooke: I am quite sure that she did not want to stay in prison. She also said that she wanted to go home to Jamaica as soon as possible. I must make the point that she had informed the Prison Reception Board at the very outset that what she wanted to do was to go back to Jamaica and not to stay in England. I can only suspect that that was the reason why she decided not to lodge an appeal—but that was a matter entirely for her.

Mr. Dingle Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appears to be quoting from a document. Under the rules of the House, should not that document be laid on the Table and made available to the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is so, subject to what the Home Secretary has to say.

Mr. Brooke: I have no objection to making the text of the petition, or the petition itself, available. I am prepared to put it into the Library of the House or elsewhere.
I want to say here that it was not the case, as was alleged at Question Time, that she was kept in prison incommunicado and given no opportunity to consult anyone. The right hon. Member for Belper said this evening that whilst she was in prison for four weeks she had seen nobody. The fact is that a friend visited her every week, that she was allowed to write as many letters as she wished, and that the moment she said she would like to be


put in touch with the Jamaican authorities that message was conveyed to them.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was differentiation of treatment, that aliens were treated in a different way. There are consular conventions with about eight foreign countries by which a communication is made to the consular authorities when any of their nationals is detained in prison. That is the position, but it is not a general rule which applies to all countries, and I should make it clear that we have acted in strict accord with those consular conventions.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely it ought to apply to the Commonwealth.

Mr. Brooke: That is one of the matters which I should like to consider. It is not a point which has been raised with me as yet. I was about to say that there are several matters which I wish to consider further.
I consider that as things were she was detained in prison too long. I expressed my regret about this in the House on Thursday. The reason it happened was not through neglect of her case, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to allege, but through the detailed attention it was being given in the Home Office as one of the first cases of its kind, if not the very first, arising under the new Act. I intend to see that this does not happen again. I am quite sure that where a person, recommended for deportation without being sentenced to imprisonment is detained and not released by the court pending deportation, the decision whether or not to make the order should be reached as quickly as possible after the period allowed for lodging an appeal has elapsed.
When it was decided on 13th July to make a deportation order and when I was answering questions about Miss Bryan in the House last Thursday, the facts were in front of the Home Secretary—the facts about her stay in this country, the facts about the decision by the magistrate not to fine her but to recommend her deportation, and the facts about her own petition to be enabled to return to Jamaica as soon as possible.
It was quite clear that the House wished to go into the matter further.

For a technical reason, it was not possible to interrupt the arranged business of a debate on the Adjournment at seven o'clock on Thursday, as might have happened on a normal day. In the circumstances, I felt that the House thought that I had a right to hold up the arrangements which were in train for her to return to Jamaica on Saturday and to exercise my power under the Act to release her from prison meanwhile so that the debate could take place today without prejudice to her or to anybody.
I have naturally considered the matter carefully over the weekend. I have decided to cancel the deportation order. I should like to explain my reason for doing this quite clearly, because I should not like it to be thought that a Home Secretary lightly disregards a recommendation by a magistrate, still less that he lightly overrules a decision by his predecessor. Indeed, the procedure laid down in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act when the question of deportation arises—only on a recommendation from a court and with a right of appeal specifically provided—makes it particularly incumbent on the Home Secretary to give full weight to the court's conclusions and to whether or not there has been an appeal.
But there have been developments since the order was signed and, indeed, since I answered questions in the House on Thursday. One is that the proposal to send her back to Jamaica on Saturday, which would have accorded with her petition which was in the Home Secretary's hands at that time, could not be carried out. Another fact is that whereas all the evidence up to Friday was that she wanted to leave this country as soon as possible, the evidence now is that she now wishes to stay— and I certainly do not doubt the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has and of which I have received confirmation from another quarter. In effect, she has withdrawn what she said in her petition.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: Before the right hon. Gentleman turns to the detailed facts of this case, are we to understand from what he has just said that his general approach to this problem is that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that he would


reject a recommendation of a magistrate? If so, that is a disturbing approach, because magistrates will approach this matter on this basis: "The Home Secretary has no power to make a deportation order unless I make a recommendation; that will be the precondition and the real decision will be for the Home Secretary; this seems to be a case where it ought to be considered, so I will make a recommendation". Is there not a real danger that someone who ought not to be deported will be deported if that is the Home Secretary's approach?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I was going on to dead with that before the end of my speech. My point is that the Home Secretary has to take these decisions himself. I doubt whether an advisory committee could help him to do it better. I believe that the Home Secretary has to give personal attention to these cases, however busy he may be with other issues. The Home Secretary has to take account of all the circumstances of a case—the fact that the court has made a recommendation, the question of whether there has been an appeal and the undertakings given on behalf of the Government during the passage of the Act about the way in which the Act would be administered. That is what I propose to do.
Finally, may I return to the course of events and the reason—and there is one reason—why I have decided to take the action I have; if she now wishes to stay in Britain, it would be unconscionable to deport her when she has already spent six weeks in prison. That and that alone is the reason for my decision in this case. I warn people that they are not to think that if they commit an offence and are recommended for deportation they can count on escaping deportation because of the case of Miss Bryan. I should equally warn people that if they want to return to their own country free of charge, they had better not imagine that the simple way of securing that object is to go thieving in shops or elsewhere and rely on that to get them home at the taxpayers' expense.
Of one thing I am quite clear—that every case where a deportation order is

recommended by a magistrate under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act must be looked at very carefully by the Home Secretary on its merits. No general conclusions are to be drawn from the case of Miss Bryan except that I am certain that it would be wrong to impose on a person convicted of shoplifting without being sentenced to imprisonment both the experience of six weeks in prison and the penalty of deportation against her will. I intend to see that we have no more cases of this long period of detention pending deportation unless, of course, a sentence of imprisonment is imposed.
I do not think that Miss Bryan's will be the last difficult case to have to decide but, for the particular reasons I have explained, I hope that it will be the last case of its kind. As I have already made clear, I must pay special attention to any recommandation from a magistrate. Equally, I intend to pay attention to all that was said on behalf of the Government in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. There may be no great difficulty in the case of serious offences and there may be no great difficulty in cases of trivial offences which involve no moral obloquy.
Looking ahead, I can see that some of the most difficult cases might arise where a person has obviously not succeeded in settling down in this country, and in earning his or her own living as an ordinary person does, and then starts committing offences, perhaps because he or she has been out of work for a long time. I know that the one thing which the House would wish me to do is not to seek to apply a priori principles rigidly, without sufficient reference to particular circumstances, but rather, as I have said, to seek to decide each case on its merits in the light of the information at my disposal from the court proceedings and elsewhere and in the light of the Government's undertakings given during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. C. Royle: Following on everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said and the assurances that he has given, will he now send magistrates a directive setting out the assurances that were given by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and the then Attorney-General with regard to deportation when


the Bill was being considered by the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to all justices that simple offences of this kind do not warrant a recommendation for deportation?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a former Home Secretary, and I think that he would advise me not to comply with the request to send a directive to magistrates. I think that everybody, whether a magistrate or otherwise, is able to read and study what is said in this House. I have stated my policy to the House and it will be on record.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: The one and only redeeming feature of the way in which this case has been handled is that the Home Secretary has had second thoughts and has cancelled his deportation order. Apart from that, the whole matter has tended to confirm the grave anxieties which many of us had about these powers when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was going through the House.
I want to refer to three matters. I find it disturbing that the Minister regarded this as a suitable case in which to make a deportation order. It was contrary to the whole approach both by the then Home Secretary and the then Attorney-General when the Bill was in Committee. I do not want to repeal some of the quotations which have been made, but the Attorney-General talked about deportation in cases of a serious nature involving people of bad character. I cannot conceive that this case fell into that category, and it is disturbing that the Minister initially thought fit to make this order.
My second ground for anxiety is that despite the delay—reasonable or otherwise does not matter for the moment— in coming to a decision on this matter the Minister did not choose to invoke the powers that he has under the Second Schedule of the Act and release this young woman while the matter was under consideration. This was clearly a suitable case for the exercise of those powers because the magistrate did not regard this as a case which called for imprisonment. Despite that, this young woman spent 47 days in custody. I welcome the assurance given by the right

hon. Gentleman that he will expedite decisions in cases such as this, but I should also like an assurance that when, for good reason, the matter will take some time, in suitable cases he will invoke his powers and release the person concerned pending such a decision.
The third matter to which I want to refer is that under Section 8 of the Act a statutory notice has to be served at least seven days before a recommendation for deportation is made by a court. I do not know what happened in this case, but it would be interesting to know whether the prosecution, on its own initiative, served the notice, or whether it was served at the request of the court. If it was served by the prosecution on its own initiative, it is disturbing to think that the prosecution thought that this case was one in which serious consideration should be given to the question of deportation.
This is not a matter of interfering with the judiciary, but it appears that proper guidance should be given in those cases in which the prosecution takes the initiative of serving a notice which enables a court to consider its powers of recommending deportation. This clearly was a case in which the Home Secretary would not have dreamt of exercising his powers under the Aliens Order, 1953, and it is monstrous if Commonwealth citizens are to be placed in an invidious position vis-à-vis aliens in relation to substantially the same matter.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) about what the Minister should do on the question of magistrates. One has to be careful about any possible interference with the judiciary in the exercise of its functions, but the fact remains that this order would have stood but for the intervention of this House, and it would have been poor guidance to magistrates if a young women of previously good character who had committed one offence of shoplifting and asked the court to take into consideration another similar offence on the same day was to be considered as a suitable case for deportation. I am not suggesting that the powers which now exist should be ignored. That battle is, unfortunately, over for the moment, but if immigrants are told that they had better


behave themselves or they will be deported, they will develop a state of affairs which will accentuate the colour problem in this country.
One part of the Minister's speech which caused me considerable anxiety was when he talked about immigrants being threatened with deportation. I think that this is utterly wrong. Let the courts exercise their powers in suitable cases, but it would be disastrous if people in authority went about saying to immigrants, coloured or otherwise, "You behave yourselves, or else we will invoke our powers of deportation."

Mr. Brooke: I must get the record straight. I never mentioned the subject of being threatened with deportation.

Mr. Bowen: It may be that the word "threatened" was not used, but the Minister clearly gave the impression that it should be made clear to immigrants that this power existed and would be exercised in suitable cases. What are suitable cases? We shall create two different standards of citizenship in this country if we approach the problem in that way, and nothing could be more conducive to aggravating the colour conflict.
I warmly welcome the Minister's second thoughts, and I hope that what happened in this case will lead to a more sympathetic and understanding approach to the whole problem.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to revoke this deportation order. As hon. Members know, I have been one of the most persistent advocates of deportation for Commonwealth citizens who infringe the law in this country, but all my efforts, over many years, were in vain, despite asking many Questions and taking part in innumerable debates on the subject.
When the Government at last changed their mind and introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, containing a Clause dealing with this matter, I was still not satisfied. I considered that a period of five years' residence should not exempt a Commonwealth immigrant from deportation for serious crimes, but I was unsuccessful in my attempt to

introduce an Amendment to this effect. But I must confess that I have never had in mind deportation for offences such as that for which Miss Carmen Bryan was sentenced. I had in mind, and I concentrated on, the question of living on immoral earnings.
In my many questions to my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary I pointed out that Commonwealth immigrants were responsible for 50 per cent. of those cases in the Metropolitan Police area. I was also concerned with the question of traffic in drugs such as Indian hemp, for which Commonwealth citizens are largely responsible. I never had in mind trivial offences such as petty larceny. I am still of that opinion, and although I recognise my right hon. Friend's difficulty I cannot help feeling that many magistrates think that they are under an obligation to make a recommendation for deportation if the offence for which the accused is convicted involves a term of imprisonment, even if such a term is not imposed or if the offender is given a conditional discharge because of the triviality of the offence or because he is a first offender.
It is interesting to note how the law with regard to aliens is applied in this respect. Last year, 59 aliens were deported from this country and of those 31 were deported for offences against property. Ten of the 31 cases were charges of larceny. I do not know whether it was petty larcency, an aggravated offence or a first offence. We are without details, but whatever they were, I should still hold the view that Commonwealth immigrants should be treated more leniently than aliens. I am most anxious that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act shall be effective. In many respects I think Chat it is not being sufficiently strictly applied, but I am equally anxious that the Act shall not fall into disrepute by the general assumption of the public that its interpretation is both harsh and vindictive.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The speech which the Home Secretary has made is a complete justification of the steps taken by my right hon. Friends and myself in raising this subject as a matter of urgency last week and pressing for this short debate which, fortunately, the flexible procedure of the


House has enabled us to have. In the case of Miss Carmen Bryan I, of course, welcome the Home Secretary's decision and I am glad that now, belatedly, justice has been done.
It emerges quite clearly that in her case no recommendation for deportation should ever have been made. She ought to have been out on bail. She ought never to have been kept in Holloway for five or six weeks. The deportation order by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor ought never to have been made and she ought to have been told her rights about appealing and obtaining legal aid. In her case justice has now been done, but I am disturbed by other things which the Home Secretary said. They have left in my mind a profound sense of disquiet about other people in respect of whom a deportation order has been made and about the way they are being treated.
Magistrates are making recommendations for deportation in circumstances which were never envisaged by the House when the Act was passed. There therefore arises, and there arose in this case which would have been implemented if we had not been vigilant in this matter, a complete abuse by the Executive of the powers of deportation given by the House. Solemn pledges have been ignored. One passage by the former Attorney-General, now the Lord Chancellor, has already been quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I should like to quote another. He said, in resisting an Amendment to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which was subsequently withdrawn in reliance on the assurance then given:
I cannot think that there is any prospect of any court ever being asked to consider a recommendation unless it is a serious case by a man of bad character. …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 541.]
We now find, in complete betrayal of this assurance, recommendations being made by magistrates in various parts of the country. Therefore, my hon. Friends have asked that this assurance, on which Parliament gave the Executive these powers of deportation, should be firmly brought to the notice of magistrates.
Secondly, now that the Home Secretary finds that magistrates are making recommendations for deportation in cir-

cumstances which were not envisaged, and which would not have been tolerated by the House, we must insist that the Home Secretary, in many cases, should ignore and certainly, in every case, should examine the recommendations most scrupulously.
What is the position of people who are at present subject to recommendations for deportation? There are 50 or 60 cases. Some may be precisely in circumstances analogous to those of Miss Bryan, or in every case the circumstances may differ. How many of these people are in prison? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider each case carefully. In how many of these cases is he receiving letters or, as he calls them, petitions from these people?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in each case that any such letter or petition written from prison is presumably written under duress? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. It may well be written in circumstances in which the person recommended for deportation thinks that the only alternatives, as Miss Bryan thought, are staying in prison indefinitely or going back to his or her own country.
The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, look at each of these cases scrupulously. I ask that he should give an undertaking that he will not make any order for deportation in any of these cases until he tells us the principles on which he will act, because this case of Miss Bryan's, in which justice has now been done, is symbolical of others. This debate has exposed the whole faulty and absurd administration of the Act, in view of the recommendations for deportation which have been made.
I should have thought that ail those who are in prison ought to be released. If the Home Secretary's argument is that they should be deported, what is the justification for keeping them in prison unitil the moment of deportation? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the wickedness of what he was going to do to this girl if we had not intervened? He was going to keep her in Holloway Gaol until Saturday and put her on an aeroplane without the opportunity of going back to her home, without any opportunity of saying goodbye to her friends, and without any of the ordinary


civilities that humanity and justice require.
That was scandalous treatment which could not possibly be tolerated. Although it has been rectified in this case I am worried that the same kind of treatment may be meted out in the other oases where magistrates have quite wrongly made recommendations for deportation —recommendations which right hon. Gentlemen should ignore, certainly if they flout the assurances given by the then Attorney-General to the House.
I think that enough has been staid to show that we cannot rest content with the rescission of this particular order of deportation. All the others must be examined on the same basis. The Home Secretary should say that he will not deport anybody until he has told us the principles on which he will act and the safeguards which he is to introduce to see chat Commonwealth citizens have the elementary rights which both justice and humanity demand.
I am not objecting to the powers of deportation which were given to the Executive in certain circumstances to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has referred. I agree that the Executive should have them and that they should be limited to the serious cases of people of bad character whom we were talking about when we considered the Act in Committee, but they should not be extended to these petty cases.
In another passage of his speech it was not clear from what the Home Secretary said what weight he would give to the wishes of some of the Commonwealth immigrants who might be recommended for deportation. At one time, he seemed to suggest that in Miss Bryan's case he would have regard to her wishes. At one moment, he thought of sending her back. He must make up his mind whether he regards deportation as a punishment or a privilege. It cannot be both. There must be some sense in this arrangement.
No one condones the petty larceny which this young girl committed. No one condones crime, but we must insist that Commonwealth immigrants who have come to this country, whether coloured or not, are treated fairly and equally

before the law with all other British subjects. There can be no second-class citizenship for British subjects, whether they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or elsewhere. Justice is indivisible, and Commonwealth immigrants, whatever faults they may commit, must have the same rights before a court of law and the same access to justice as all other citizens.

Orders of the Day — NORTH-EAST COAST (REDUNDANCY AND UNEMPLOYMENT)

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I now want to turn the attention of the House from the rights and claims of individuals to the rights and claims of a region—the claims of the North-East Coast. I realise that most hon. Members who represent constituencies on the North-East Coast will be anxious to criticise the Government, and I also understand that the Minister of Labour is anxious to listen to all that we have to say and to reply to the debate.
The North-East Coast is a readily identifiable part of Britain. The people who live there are not Scots and they play Minor Counties cricket. They are also very readily identifiable because they have been callously neglected by successive Conservative Governments. Before the war, in the grim 'thirties, we were seared by massive unemployment —a vast aggregation of individual family hardships. Now, in a very different Britain, in a Britain of relatively full employment, in the North-East we nevertheless feel the same measure of Tory indifference and neglect. Persistently, year after year, we find that we endure an unempolyment level running at about twice the national average.
In the badly hit areas, the level is far worse. In my own constituency of Sunderland, we have had over the past few years an unemployment rate of 5 per cent., and occasionally very much more. We have had this persistent 5 per cent. unemployed. We had this at the last General Election, when we were told about the jobs in the pipeline and about the "new look" which the Conservatives were to bring to development


area policy. Today, we have about the same level of unemployed as we had in 1959.
In spite of all this, we have been "stop-feted"—taken off the list of development districts; but we in Sunder-land are not prepared to accept as tolerable a level of 5 per cant. of unemployment. In the development districts themselves, there is at present the highest level of unemployment which we have had since the Local Employment Act. We have areas like South Shields with 5 per cent. unemployed, Bishop Auckland and Crook with over 5 per cent., and Hartlepools—and I was surprised not to see the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Karans) here today—we have well over 6 per cent. unemployed, and in the smaller areas unemployment is as high as 8 per cent. This is more than a question of some 40,000 people continuously unemployed. Within those numbers, we know that there are 1,600 not merely skilled but highly skilled engineers. This country cannot afford the enforced idleness of these people today. Within these numbers, we have 1,100 not just constructional workers but highly skilled constructional workers, and it is a crying disgrace that these men are standing idle when they should be engaged in industrial development in the North-East itself.
As this volume of unemployment has persisted, so the number of unfilled vacancies has shrunk. I have mentioned Crook. In areas like Crook, where only two new firms have been introduced since the war and where there has been no industrial development in the past 15 years, there are today 40 men chasing every vacancy. In an area such as this, what chance has a school leaver? The school leavers will be driven to find work only at the expense of breaking up the family.
Instead of these problems evoking a determined effort from the Government, we get this persistent and steady neglect —indeed, discriminatory neglect. In recent weeks in this House, we have discussed the cotton industry and Scotland. If we look at the report on the Local Employment Act, we find that by way of Exchequer aid—grants and loans—the Government have provided £10 million to aid Merseyside and £14 million to aid Glasgow and the central region of Scot-

land, and that, during this time, the North-East Coast has received, not £10 million or £14 million, but a mere £433,000.
According to the latest available figures, there is less industrial building in this region than in any other region in the country. Here, we are building a trifle more than one half of the industrial building which is being carried out in the Midlands and only one third, or not much more than one third, of that which is being carried out in London. It does not matter what aspect of this problem we raise, we get this blank indifference from the Government. We see the Minister of Power about our claims for a new power station, but he shows no sign that he recognises the special problems and difficulties of the North-East Coast. We have complained about the cuts in school building, and we find that the axe has fallen more heavily in the North-East than almost anywhere else. It is true that we have begun again on the Tyne Tunnel, but, for the past few years we have had far less than a square deal on the programme for new roads and road improvements. We have had the railway closures, and now Dr. Beeching is discouraging us by suggesting that the Tyne-side Electric Railways might be dispensed with.
I do not want to be misunderstood by the Minister. We do not say that anyone owes us a living. We have had the present Minister of Pensions and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the North-East, and they have urged upon us the virtues of self-help. We are doing all we can to help ourselves. Our former colleague, Mr. George Chetwynd, gave up his seat and is doing a grand job in trying to attract new industries to the area. In my own constituency, we have a full-time official whose whole efforts are devoted to attracting new industries to Sunderland, and who is doing an equally good job. We have the whole-hearted backing of the Press, but the plain truth now is that in the North-East we cannot solve our difficulties on our own.
We have special difficulties because we are so very dependent on the basic industries. Today, the steel industry in the North-East has over 6 per cent. unemployed. We still see no signs of an


early recovery. We know that 6,000 miners, 6 per cent. of the labour force of the industry in the North-East, left the industry last year. In his May Day message Mr. Sam Watson publicly estimated that over the next few years in the Durham coal field alone there will be 18,000 fewer miners. In shipbuilding there are 2,000 fewer jobs than there were 12 months ago. If we look at the basic essential figure—tonnage preparing, work for which plans have been approved and materials ordered—we find that we have half the work in hand that we had at the time of the General Election.
This demands some response from the Government. It demands, more than anything else, a national plan for economic growth because it is the basic industries more than any other industry which depend on this. It demands a fuel policy. It demands an end to this indifference which we have seen in the House time after time—the indifference to the problems and difficulties of a national industry such as shipbuilding.
It is no good hon. Members opposite sneering at planning. In fact, within the next few years we shall find that there will be as many people employed in Government-built factories in the North-East as there will be employed in coal mining. This is not a quarrel about planning, but if we are going to plan we had better plan intelligently. We had better be enthusiastic and determined about it. We had better have comprehensive planning, too. Time after time we find that an initiative taken in the region is lost at Whitehall. If there is drive and vigour in the region, it is lost at Whitehall. Too many chances are lost. Too many times an industrialist at the end of the day, thoroughly wearied, abandons his project in the face of Governmental procrastination, indecision and delay.
Let us on the contrary have a tough realistic I.D.C. policy. Let us give some meaning to what we are told time after time about priority in Government contracts. Let us get some benefit from this. Let us not just recognise it as a dead letter. As I have said, planning has not only got to be vigorous and meaningful. It has got to be comprehensive. This is a bigger job than merely the Board of Trade can do—and

I am sorry not to see the President of the Board of Trade with us today. This is a job which affects many Departments and Ministries.
One of the urgent tasks is the civic redevelopment of some of the older industrial towns. They want a new look if we are to attract new industry to them. This demands not only priority but Government support. This planning needs not only to be vigorous and comprehensive. It also needs to be ambitious. It so happens that we have let the advance factory that was built at South Shields. Why cannot the Board of Trade take some encouragement from this? Why cannot it respond to this and plan an advance factory building programme for the North-
East Coast? If private enterprise does not respond when we build the factories, let public enterprise respond.
This is really the kernel of the problem. This is why time after time we have had to complain of the lack of response from a Tory Government. What we demand is really alien to Tory philosophy. This is why those of us who have been brought up and have lived through the troublesome times on the North-East Coast know that we shall get a fair deal only when we get a Labour Government. This is the real significance of the Middlesbrough by-election. We know on the North-East Coast that we shall not get an industrial square deal until we get social justice too.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I have listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who has spoken with his usual fluency and sincerity. I would agree with him in much of what he says, but not in all. On this side of the House, too, we desire to see an end to the pockets of high unemployment on the North-East Coast, and I agree, of course, that there are pockets of high unemployment.
I cannot, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's present Government have been lacking in enthusiasm to cure the problem of unemployment on the North-East Coast— anything but. I cannot agree that the Local Employment Act has not worked.


It has worked, and if anyone can suggest a better method of seeking out pockets of unemployment and doing something about them than by means of development certificates, I should like to know what it is.
We know that general direction of industry is the policy, indeed the philosophy, of the party opposite; but is it common sense to suggest that all development is mobile? I do not think it is. It is not possible in many cases, when development is desired by industry in other parts of the country, to suggest that such an extension as is proposed can automatically go to an area of low employment. It would often mean cutting a factory literally in two, the numbing of the enterprise of the concern, increased transport costs and extensive additions to administration. So it is not always possible to move an extension to areas of low employment.
Neverthless, a great deal has happened since the introduction of that massive piece of legislation, the Local Employment Act. Other parts of the country have benefited more quickly than we from the Local Employment Act. But I suggest that it may well be coming in a much bigger way. Even now it is unfair to say that the North-East has not already benefited from the Local Employment Act.
Our problem in the north-east of England is the basic problem that we have three traditional industries all of which are contracting and all of which are interdependent—coal, steel and shipbuilding. Steel at present is running in the North-East at something like three-fifths its capacity. Of course, this is due to a number of things—to extensive destocking and falling demand from the coal industry, from the railways and from the shipyards. The North-East Development Council's overall target for the area of 4 per cent. annual increase is excellent and one which I commend.
In the shipyards of the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1962 orders amounted to 150,000 tons gross. This compares with 131,000 tons gross for the same period last year, and it represents a considerable improvement. The percentage of overseas orders to shipyards has risen from 7·6 per cent. in 1961 to 48 per cent. in 1962. This again is a highly desirable trend. We are

getting more foreign trade once again. It is a six-fold increase. But it is still not enough. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that we must seek to gain still more business for our shipyards.
However, in the attempt to face the problem of continued employment in the north-east of England we must look hard at foreign competition. We must not put our heads in the national sand. We must look to our own weaknesses. Before demanding new industry let us see what can be done with existent industry.
A short while ago I was fortunate enough to be a member of a Parliamentary delegation which visited Greece, and it was with considerable interest that with my colleagues on the delegation, I visited a Greek shipyard. There were 6,000 men, all hard at work. It was a very encouraging sight—great activity, great productivity in both repair work and new construction. The manager of that yard told me that he believed that they were getting such a large amount of business—some of which might well have come to the United Kingdom—because they had no restrictive practices, no union disputes; because, as he put it, he had to deal with only two unions.
It is high time that we looked very hard indeed at restrictive practices in our own industry. Hon. Members opposite may tell me that I do not know too much about industrial restrictive practices or of their origin. I can only say that I had all my political training in the north-east of England, and I had my campaigning experience in the constituency of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen), whom I am glad to see here now, and I was very well instructed in the historical background of restrictive practices. I know their background, I appreciate the reason for many of them, but it is no good living in the past. Unless we cure this steady restrictive practice in industry we shall lose more business to Greek, Dutch and other shipyards—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newoastle-upon-Tyne, West): Is the hon. Gentleman alleging that restrictive practices in the North-East are responsible for that area not getting shipping orders?

Mr. Elliott: They axe a strong contributory factor, and it is high time that both sides of industry looked at this particular weakness. I have here a cutting from a newspaper produced in the north-east of England, reporting that Mr. Ted Hill, general secretary of the Boilermakers' Society, suggested after a recant ballot in which shipbuilding workers decided not to strike for more pay—and all credit to them for that— that the employers were living in a fool's paradise if they thought they had won a victory, and that there were other ways of going about it. He went on to say that by working to rule, by going slow, banning overtime and piece work, the worker could get his wages raised and hit the employer hard. When I refer to restrictive practices in our north-eastern shipyards, I merely suggest that that sort of approach by a union leader will not help us to maintain employment.
The Local Employment Act has done much to help us. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North particularly mentioned 'the Board of Trade factories, and quite rightly. There are currently employed in those factories some 60,000 workers. Factories and extensions already approved will provide some 20,000 new jobs in the coming four years. The difficulties of direction of industry are many, and development is not helped by the suggestion from the benches opposite that a future Labour Government might well practice complete direction of industry.
We on this side of the Chamber believe in private enterprise, and in a certain amount of harmonisation in these matters; in persuasion rather than in direction. Persuasion is working, and we must make it work a little more quickly in the North-East, but the veiled suggestion in Signpost of the Sixties that firms in receipt of Government grants and loans might well qualify for nationalisation is not encouraging to those who would seek to develop in our area. Continued encouragement is much more desirable and, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, it is essential that we should help ourselves.
I join with him in his tribute to our colleague of other days, George Chetwynd, who is doing a fine job in the North-East. He is setting out whole-

heartedly to publicise the area, and to point out to those who seek to extend their industry from other parts that we have a fine labour force, and that the North-East is an area of fine amenities, and one that would welcome new industry and new sources of employment.
It is essential that we should help ourselves, and we should also beware of gloom. Let us not seek to depress those who would come to the North-East. All credit is due to the regional organisation of the Board of Trade. Those of us on both sides who represent the area are in regular contact with the regional controller and his officers, and many of us have visited sites with prospective industrialists and the regional controller's officers. I pay them all a tribute for their work in helping to bring to the North-East new employment.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I am very much tempted to put the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) in his place, but tonight we have agreed to impose self-restraint. I confess that I was surprised when the hon. Member said that he had had his political training in the North because, if he had, he would have been able to produce a constructive idea, but that he has completely failed to do.
To praise the Government is common form, of course, on that side. The hon. Gentleman has also indulged in unfounded assumptions about conditions that obtain in industry in the North-East, about restrictive practices, and the like. We have heard it all so often, but no evidence (has been produced to support those foolish contentions. However, I am concerned not with political irrelevancy, because this is not really a political debate, but with constructive proposals for rehabilitating industry in the North-East.
We are all familiar with the facts— economic insecurity, rising unemployment, in spite of the Local Employment Act, and the like. What are we to do about it? My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that we should try to do something for ourselves, and the hon. Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, North endorsed that view. In the North-East we have several nationalised industries under the


National Coal Board, the Central Electricity Authority and the Gas Council, and with them in mind I want to represent a view to the Minister of Labour, which he might convey to his colleagues.
Why should not the Coal Board, out of its innumerable requirements, place more contracts in the North-East for mining machinery and for various accessories instead of going to other parts of the country? It might be possible to find industrial firms there capable of undertaking such contracts. The same applies to the Central Electricity Authority. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues will propose the establishment of an electricity power station in the North-East, so I shall not deal with that, but the C.E.A. might, out of its many requirements, find opportunities for helping our industries—and the Gas Council, equally.
It might be argued that that would mean taking work from other parts of the country, and I will come to that. There has been a great deal of talk about direction of industry. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North said that there will be no compulsory direction of industry from that side, but let me make this suggestion. There are far too many industries in the South. Let us assume that, if some of them were transferred to the North, unemployment would show a slight rise in the South. In the course of time they would rehabilitate themselves, but we would be glad to absorb some of the industries which now operate in the South.
How is that to be done? There are Departments under the control of the Government—for example, the Post Office and the police. They want clothing—boots, shoes and various other articles of apparel—and stores. Is there any reason why contracts for the supply of such articles should not foe placed in the North-East? We have some clothing factories there already. I am not making a claim for my constituency. I make the claim for the whole of the North-East. After all, what benefits other parts of the North-East must in due course redound to the advantage of constituencies like mine.
As I say, we have clothing factories in the North-East. Why cannot they make clothing under Government con-

tract for the police, the Post Office and other Government Departments? There are many industries there capable of producing vehicles. Why cannot they undertake the task under contract of manufacturing vehicles which are now purchased by the Service Departments in the South? This is the way to transform the North-East. To do this nationalisation is not required. Legislation is not required. Even persuasion is not required. All that the Government need to do is to examine the situation in the North-East, plan it out, and see what industries the North-East can absorb and whether contracts can be diverted from the South and perhaps from the Midlands to the North-East to provide some amelioration of the economic problem which exists there at present.
I do not pretend that this is a complete solution. It is far from that. However, it could mitigate the harsh severity of the present situation. It could instil confidence into industry in the North-East. That is what is wanted. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North dealt with this, but it was the only suggestion he made. We must instil confidence into industry. We must make people feel optimistic about the future. I heard one of my Scottish colleagues say the other day that the life of Scotland is ebbing away. We are not going to say that about the North-East. We want to attract industry, not drive it away. We want to impart confidence and give the workers in industry optimism for the future. There is a bright future for the North-East.
We cannot depend on the proposals of the Government. They are poor proposals and they will be fruitless. The Government can only provide a modicum of employment. That is not enough. Industry must be diverted to the North, even as a temporary measure. One way is through the medium of Government contracts.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I am grateful to have this chance to speak on behalf of the North-East, because for too long we have been regarded as the forgotten area of the United Kingdom. We seem to spend a great deal of time on Scottish affairs.


We know that Scotland has problems, but the north-east of England has its problems, also. That is why I am delighted that the debate tonight will at least give those of us who represent constituencies in the North-East a chance to put forward the claims of our area.
It is time people realised that the North-East does exist, that it has problems, and that we should like these problems to be solved. I do not want to hark back too much on the past, but in the 1930s this was an area which had very heavy unemployment. I do not think that anybody who has lived through those days in that area will ever forget them, because undoubtedly they were hard days, and I hope that they will never again return to any part of the country.
I have said in the House before that, when I was a child, I lived in the Jarrow area. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who talks as if only members of the Labour Party have suffered, must get his facts into perspective. There are people on this side who have also come up the hard way and had to live on very little money. When I was a child my father had 21s. a week to keep us all. Living on 21s. per week is not any paradise.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): Would the hon. Gentleman say that that is typical of members of the Tory Party?

Mr. Montgomery: No, I do not think that it is typical. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by that, but among the large numbers of people who vote for the Tory Party at general elections there must be many who endured hard times in the 1930s.
The miraculous thing about that period was that so many people who had so little money on which to exist managed to keep their self-respect. They managed somehow or other to make ends meet. It is time that a tribute was paid to them for the way they managed in very difficult circumstances.
The present unemployment situation in the North-East gives cause for concern. Of course, things are not as bad as they were in the 1930s, but we must ask ourselves whether the position is

good enough. In June, 1962, unemployment in the Northern Region was 3·2 per cent., as compared with 1·8 per cent for the whole of Great Britain. We must ask ourselves why the North-East has a much higher unemployment percentage than other parts of the United Kingdom.
It seems that Whitehall regards us as a backwood. It hopes that because we are so far away from London our complaints will not be heard. In any case, whose fault is it that we are so remote? We cannot help our geographical position, but I wonder why more has not been done to help to improve communications between the North-East and other parts of the country. Why do we always seem to be the last in the queue for everything that comes along? Why have not we got a real motorway? Other parts of the country have one.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to tackle my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and find out from him what plans he has to help us to improve our communications and thereby help us to improve the employment prospects in the area.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a little more about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am sorry that when the Prime Minister was doing his reshuffling last week he did not decide to take shipbuilding away from the Ministry of Transport and have a separate Department for it. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has far too much to do when he is concerned with roads, railways and shipbuilding. We in the North-East are very concerned about shipbuilding, because it is one of our two basic industries. Unfortunately, both of them seem to have passed the peak of their prosperity. A separate Government Department is required which could do some positive thinking about ways in which to improve the prosperity of the shipbuilding industry.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said, this does not merely depend on the Government. He was right when he said that there must be much more co-operation between employers and employees. We should have something


like a shipyards charter, whereby employees would have much more security. One of the troubles in the shipbuilding industry today is that people can be finished at very short notice. This gives the workers great cause for concern. If they had more security and redundancy payments in accordance with length of service with the firm concerned, and, on the other hand, agreed to end demarcation disputes, that would be for the benefit of the whole industry. It is no good one union fighting another, or unions fighting the employers. All are in this together. If shipbuilding is prosperous all benefit and if it is in decline all suffer.
One of the problems which has resulted because of constant unemployment in the North-East is migration of people to areas of higher employment. It is estimated that from 1951 there has been a net drift of 80,000 people from the north-east of England. Many of those people would not have left the area where they had their roots if employment prospects there had been better.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, touched on the special problem of school leavers. I wish to refer to that problem, which is a tremendous anxiety to everyone concerned. It has been obvious for a long time that the intake of school leavers into employment is getting much slower each term. In the Newcastle area, five years ago, the majority of school leavers were in their first job by the beginning of the following term, but at the moment the prospect is that some of these school leavers will not have obtained employment by the end of the term following that when they left school.
The main difficulty in the Newcastle area is shortage of jobs at all levels and in all industries; and it is not a problem confined to one particular industry. While the number of engineering apprenticeships, especially among smaller firms, shows a decrease, there is just as much difficulty in the Newcastle area fox a boy who wants to work as a van boy or in a warehouse.
We also have to bear in mind the effect of more school leavers coming on to the labour market. It will mean that employers will be more selective and demand higher standards, sometimes higher

than is actually necessary. There is a marked increase in the number of boys of 16 and 17 on the unennployment register. It is more difficult for those who have lost jobs to get a new job. An analysis of boys registered in Newcastle at the end of June showed that 24 had been unemployed for over a month, 23 for over three months and 12 for over six months, while (two had been unemployed for over a year. The tragedy is that some of these boys, who have been unemployed for long periods, have now become poor candidates for employment.
Just as this is a problem among normal youngsters, it is a great problem among handicapped young people. In the Newcastle area there are, on the boys' register, three epileptics, one deaf boy, three blind, five educationally subnormal, two spastics, and one suffering from asthma. At the end of this month there will be a new batch of school leavers from the special schools.
We are particularly short of semiskilled employment. I agree that there is far too much industry in the South and the Midlands and not enough in the North-East. Some of that employment which provides for semi-skilled people would certainly be good enough for those not capable of doing a first-class apprenticeship but who are too good for the menial kind of employment. The position in Newcastle is not confined to boys, although for them it is much worse, but among girls it is becoming more and more difficult to secure good employment.
I urge my right hon. Friend to bear this in mind, because the position is likely to worsen at the end of this week. We have to remember the number of school children who will leave at the end of the summer term. Over the last five years the total unemployed on the register of the Newcastle Youth Employment Bureau has risen from 116 in 1958 to 306 today. When we add to that 306 the fact that at the end of this week 2,698 will be leaving the schools, we get an idea of the tremendous problem facing the North-East now.
The figures I have given are for Newcastle only, but I am sure that similar figures will be found throughout the Whole of the north-east of England. Unemployment is a heartbreak at any time, but for a young person to begin


his adult life signing on at the local employment exchange must be one of the greatest heartbreaks of all.
This is an urgent problem, and I should be glad to hear from my right hon. Friend what steps his Department are taking to deal with it. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North rightly said that in the North-East we are not asking for charity. We do no feel that anybody owes us a living. But we feel that more attention must be paid by the Government to the North-East. We are trying to help ourselves, through the North-East Development Council, which is doing a great deal to attract new industry to the area. In the North-East we have a great deal of which we can be proud. There is much skill and there are good labour relations—much better than in some areas of high employment.
Hon. Members opposite realise as well as we do that if we are to sell ourselves we must give this picture of good labour relations. It is true that in certain shipyards—not all of them—they have demarcation disputes and restrictive practices, and it is also true that in some yards there is not good management; and all these things must be ironed out if shipbuilding is to survive. But, on the whole, labour relations in the North-East are good.
In addition to having good labour relations and good workmanship, the North-East is not an unattractive area. The picture which is sometimes painted of it in the South is quite inaccurate. I have met people who have gone to the North-East to work, with great misgivings, and who, within a very short time, have become great admirers of the North-East.
I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend, who was vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and in charge of candidates when I was on the candidates' list. I feel rather beholden to him that he decided that I was a suitable candidate and started me off on my political career. I hope that he will tell us about the steps which his Department intend to take to meet the urgent situation in the North-East for school leavers. I hope that he will use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to improve our communications and also with his right hon. Friend

the President of the Board of Trade to see that he does all in his power to persuade more firms to start in the North-East. We want as diversified an industrial background as possible so that the North-East may be one of the most prosperous areas in the country, which I believe is its due.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: After listening to speeches from the Government benches on this important subject I begin to wonder how some hon. Members take their places on those benches opposite instead of sitting on the benches on this side of the House. On the other hand, while I may put that point to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) is trying to prop up the Government in the attitude which they have taken towards the North-East.
However much the Government or their supporters may seek to cover up their lack of interest in the North-East, it will not eliminate the startling fact that pits are closing, due to the Government's policies, and that the social consequences involved are striking very deeply into our village life. Not only is this action imposing this fear on our people from the mining industry but there are others, such as the small shopkeeper and the milkman and other small vested interests, who are concerned about their livelihood, as is everyone else in the North-East.
In 1951, the unemployment figure in the North-East was as low as 1·8 per cent. Today, it is over 3 per cent. Sometimes it is well over 6 per cent. As more pit closures take place, the fear of not finding work becomes intensified among our people.
It is all very well for the Government, through their Ministers, to say that work is available in the Midlands and elsewhere for unemployed miners, and that may be true. What they are saying, in effect, is that once a miner, always a miner, and that the privilege of changing one's occupation cannot be countenanced for the miner when vacancies exist at various collieries outside the Durham coalfield.
In all probability, had interest been shown in the North-East by successive


Governments before 1939 by affording the area a fair share of new factory space in those years, many of the so designated unemployed miners might not have become miners at all and would not now be facing the present state of uncertainty. Before 1939, we were getting less than 5 per cent. of new factory space whilst London and the South-East was getting over 50 per cent. The advent of the Labour Government in 1945 changed all that, however, and we received a fairer proportion of what was available.
In my constituency, at Aycliffe, we had a Government ordnance factory which was changed from its war potential factory operation into what is known as the Aycliffe trading estate, which provides about 4,500 jobs. Many of the people working there come from different parts of the county. It has been stated that within the next few years, there may be jobs at the central site for over 6,000 people. The district manager of the industrial corporation has gone on record as expressing the view that by 1965, 5,700 people may be employed there and that this number could rise above 6,000 if inquiries now being made materialise.
I congratulate the district manager on his optimism, but it is noticeable that his statement is by no means definite. He states that it may happen. So we are left hoping. Who can say that but for Government policy in suspending the operation of the distribution of industry policy from 1957 to 1959, new factories could have been established at Aycliiffe and given employment to many people who have had to leave my area and elsewhere in the county because of unemployment or the fear of becoming unemployed?
Let not the Government treat this matter too lightly, for it is a serious situation in which we now find ourselves in the North-East. Bach hon. Member knows his own area best. Not a weekend passes when, on my return home from London, I am not informed that certain people have left the area where I live for employment elsewhere. One of the many questions now being posed to me, and with great force, is Whether the Government have now written off the area and care not what may happen to the district as a whole.
It is understandable for such questions to be asked in view of the predictions which have been made concerning the Dunham coalfield. Not only is man-power to be run down a great deal more in the next few years, but we have been faced with the position that half of the manpower has been taken away from a combined mine in my area, namely, the Dean and Chapter colliery, at Ferryhill, as well as at Thrislington, the manpower being reduced from 950 to 450 men, with no guarantee that there will not be further action by the Coal Board within a certain number of years.
If pit closures are inevitable and uneconomic pits must close, surely the Government have a great responsibility to the area to bring in new industry with the object of taking up the available labour force which wants to remain in the area, which it regards with just as much affection as anyone else regards his home area.
To me, nothing is more nauseating than to see able-bodied young men trudging their way to the employment exchange to sign on and to look for work. This is happening and it is creating a sense of frustration among our young people who feel that the Government do not care what happens to them. Who can tell, while we are having this rundown in manpower due to the closure of uneconomic pits in the North-East, whether other well-established industries are not, too, feeling the pinch because of the lack of interest shown in them by the Government?
Many of my constituents are among the high figures of unemployed registered in The Hartlepools and along Tees-side. There is talk of tightening up of employment in I.C.I, at Billingham. If there should be a closing of the door to new entrants going into this industry it could have serious consequences throughout the whole area because it would affect not only Billingham itself but the areas immediately outside. At one time there was not the same fear as there is now about apprenticeship training and employment for young people in this area, but this fear is now spreading, and, therefore, some positive action must be taken to find accommodation and employment for these young people.
The North-East has always prided itself on its enterprise and initiative.


Craftsmen of every type have been produced, and their work has been praised in many parts of the world. Our people fully realise that there is no room for complacency and that we can ill afford that lack of interest which this Government have shown in the North-East. If such areas are to be saved, such as Ferryhill, Chilton Buildings and West Cornforth, which are suffering at present because of the uneconomic position of pits in those areas, the Government must come to their aid. I believe that the Government could assist tremendously by adopting the same policies of previous Tory Governments when they were prepared to hand out subsidies to the coal owners prior to nationalisation. This would keep the pits open till such time as alternative employment is brought into those areas. Surely, if such assistance can be granted to private enterprise industry, as has been granted under this present Administration, to keep those industries going, why not the same form of treatment to these uneconomic units which may in time become economic?
Like myself, the people of the class from which I spring do not like to ask for charity, but I am prepared to ask and accept it if it will save these areas from becoming derelict and unwanted. In time of war our people have given of their best to save the nation which we love. Their sons have taken arms in its defence. In time of peace all they ask for is that the same consideration be granted to us as is shown to any other people—not more, but just an equal portion of what is going, and that, in common justice, is right, so that they are not just classed as a grand people and then forgotten but so that their needs are fully recognised, and recognised as just as great as those of any others.
Therefore, I hope the Government, at the termination of the debate tonight on this important subject, will recognise the importance of the North-East and the consequences which can arise if positive action is not taken.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I think the whole House will recognise that the problem of the North-East is the same as that of Britain as a

whole. It is simply to adapt itself to the changing circumstances of our time. It is no use lamenting the closure of pits when yesteryear people were complaining and grumbling about the need for them to have to go underground. How much better that we should welcome this change and hope that it will result in better working conditions. This is one field, to which I want to return in a moment, where I believe that the Government have had responsibility which in the past they have not honoured but which in the future I hope they will.
In adapting itself to changing circumstances, I should have thought, the North-East has a fair record about which we could boast. I must say that I came to the debate this evening expecting to be able to attack hon. Members opposite for moaning about the problems of the North-East. I am grateful to be able to pay tribute to them for the fact that the debate has not developed along those lines. If we moan about our problems in the North-East, as the Scots are wont to do about their problems, interminably, then we make those problems the greater. Carrying the cross of Jarrow for ever before us may well belabour the North-East with the reputation of Jarrow of the 'thirties. [Interruption.] I am sorry if hon. Members opposite want to interrupt me. I was trying to congratulate them. If they want the congratulations withdrawn, that can be done quite easily. I should have thought that the very fact that we were not bemoaning our problems as much as some of us thought possible was an outward and visible sign of the changing mood of the North-East, that we are becoming aware of, and becoming willing to shout the advantages of, our workmanship, our skill and our management where this is so. If there are some failings in terms of labour relations in the North-East—indeed, there are—so there are some failings on the managerial side as well.
I think particularly of the shipbuilding industry, an industry which, because of its very nature, is inclined to operate within fairly rigid lines of demarcation, and managerial failure in this industry is, I believe, as great as is the failure of unions to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. Many are the shipbuilding firms in Britain at large and in the North-East in particular which have not, until very recently, gone out to seek


orders abroad in the way that younger, more dynamic industries do. But where we see dynamic management in the shipbuilding industry, I believe it should be praised.
If perchance I do not refer to The Hartlepools, it is purely because I want to refer to the Tyne and the Wear. Who could doubt the merits of Swan Hunter's today? On the Wear, who could doubt the dynamism—I am sorry that the horn. Member for Sundarland, North (Mr. Willey) has left the Chamber—of Pickersgills in Sunderland, and also Thompsons, in Sunderland, a yard which has expanded its facilities from a shipbuilding capacity in the region of 8,000-10,000 tons before the war to 65,000 tons at the last launch and now has laid down a keel of 80,000-85,000 tons?
These are the stories of the North-East which I wish we in this House could champion more loudly. I wish to high heaven that industry outside would tell its success story more dramatically. We in the North-East produce pamphlets and make speeches about the region of the three rivers, but to what extent do we get these success stories across? I believe—if I may make a confession to the House, I am connected with public relations, although I am not bidding for business in this respect—that industry should tell its story. If it does not, then the story will not be told by other people. If only our industries in the North-East—I.C.I., the shipbuilding industries, Headley's and the rest—would tell their success stories more positively, the success of the North-East itself would be seen more obviously.
I return for a moment to the subject of quality of management, for it is on this—on the free enterprise side—that much depends. Enterprise, I suspect, is not as forward as it should be. The art of competition may have been dulled during the war years and since. The enterprise of many businesses is rigidly sealed off in many cases. Industry gets too big. The chances of promotion are restricted, and promotion depends on time serving. Those of us—I hope I can still say this—of the younger generation get impatient with older people who will not move along the line and give the younger people more chance.

Mr. Shinwell: This is just brazen effrontery. It is the young people on

the Government side of the House who have no modern ideas at all. If I had my way I would make a complete change in the organisation of society. That is being moderate. It is we who are the modernists, not the young upstarts on the other side.

Mr. Williams: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the upstart from Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It is very nice to have his attention on these occasions. He and I very often agree on shipping and shipbuilding matters, and I am glad that he should pay attention to what I am saying. But I believe that one of the great opportunities of our nation today is that the younger executive is about to break through into top managerial positions. This is a great excitement in industry in this country, but I suspect that in the North-East we are perhaps half a generation behind in this general change, and I only wish that there were more opportunity for the promotion of younger people.
I want to refer particularly to certain industries where there are special responsibilities. These are the new industries which have come in either as a result of the action of the Labour Government or of succeeding Conservative Governments. I think that one of the dangers to these new industries is that they have come into State factories. There is a certain weakness there. I am sorry if I am repeating what I have said before in this House, but it seems to me that any industry which comes into an area such as the North-East merely as a tenant is not so firmly based and is not so committed to a region as if it had bought a factory and come in as the owner of it. I hope that in due course the Board of Trade policy will develop a more positive approach to selling factories to sitting tenants. I believe that this would chain the loyalties of tenants irrevocably to the area to which they have come.
Labour relations are a problem to the whole of British industry and particularly to those parts where industry is older and more rigid in its forms, such as shipbuilding, steel making and coal mining. That is where the revitalising, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for Easington, of our industrial relations is needed. We in the Conservative Party


produced documents some 10 years ago called the Industrial Charter and the Workers' Charter. Why is it that these documents have not yet been implemented? I say frankly—and I have said this, as perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will know, in succeeding elections—that I want to see a better form of industrial relations being introduced and sponsored by the Government.

Mr. Willey: I think that the hon. Member should inform the House why this policy adopted 10 years ago has not been implemented by the Government and what he intends to do about it.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is talking about a Govrnment of which I have not been a member.

Mr. Shinwell: Shame.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Member for Easington says "Shame" and I may be inclined to agree with him, but that is another matter. To be fair, I would say that an attempt was made after 1951 to introduce a form of workers' charter. It ran into certain difficulties both on the management and workers' side. They were difficulties which, I believe, could and should have been overcome, but in fact they were not. If the Government intend to take a new initiative in this matter, I would welcome it.
There are two things which on the face of it are contradictory but which could be complementary. Management wants flexibility from labour and labour wants security from management. Security and flexibility are not contradictory items and they could be exchanged for each other. If we are not to get away from the attitude of bosses versus workers and workers versus bosses we shall never get the right atmosphere in industry whether in the North-East or anywhere else in the country.
I trust that with the revitalisation of the Government we shall get revitalisation of labour relations also. If we in the North-East are to gat that, there are inevitable facts of importance which follow on one from the other. One is that our national economy must expand at such a rate Chat it is, first of all, safe in the terms of the battle against inflation, and, secondly, at such a rate that

it will set industry on the move and encourage it to go to other parts of the country. These two points are not always easily reconciled. The battle of inflation must be won, otherwise new industry in the North-East will be of little internal value.
If we can get the national economic policy right for a start, then the Board of Trade's policy must be as it has been in the past—that of encouraging industry to go to these areas of high unemployment. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) say that it should work through the Local Employment Act. But this depends, firstly, on industry being willing to be on the move. We cannot direct industry to go, for if we do, at the very first crisis it will go away again and the position will be worse than it was in the first place.
I ask whether the Government feel they are doing enough to use the Board of Trade offices overseas, the Board of Trade Journal and documents of that nature, to put before overseas interests the advantages of the North-East. It seems to me that other parts of the country, perhaps Scotland, have benefited rather more than has the North-East. But having said that, I welcome what has so far been done by the Board of Trade.
One of the greatest potential developments is that which is about to take place at Washington, County Durham. The Tube Investments factory going there will only be the start of a large amount of employment which will flow from it. The jobs in the factory itself will be of tremendous importance in that part of the county, where extra employment is needed, but when one thinks of the possibilities of the ancillary trades and supply industries that will be associated with it, one can see the prospect in longer terms. This is something, however, which cannot come overnight These things will take time.
But, of course, the North-East must do even more to help itself. I regret the past—and I emphasise that word— cheeseparing attitude of different local authorities who have not wanted to come in on general North-East ventures. It is regrettable that they have thus


divided the North-East against itself and have made it more difficult to sell a positive package deal.
If we can get the positive package deal approach to the North-East now, I hope and pray that if, for example, The Hartlepools gets a factory which we in Sunderland might have wanted, we do not take a cheeseparing approach in Sunderland towards it. It is terribly important that not only should we get a reasonable degree of generosity in cost sharing and kudos but that when a new factory goes to the area we do not regard it as only of benefit to the district in which it is situated but of benefit to the whole of the North-East and something further about which we can boast.
We in the North-East have a success story to tell. It is a story which has to be told more positively and it is one of which we can all be proud. There are difficulties indeed. Let us champion our success, for in doing so we will bring greater strength to our coast.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland. South (Mr. P. Williams) when he talks about the success story of the North-East. We on this side of the House say that its success is comparable with that of any other part of the country. But that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about the closure of coal mines and the general unemployment position in the area. It is to that that we must address ourselves. Let us pay tribute to what has been done, but it has not been sufficient.
We are all very glad of the opportunity to debate this issue. The Parliamentary machine has its weaknesses. There are far too many subjects, both local and national. which cannot be discussed.
The North-East suffers more than other parts of the country in this respect and that is why last December some of my hon. Friends and I put a Motion on the Order Paper to suggest that there should be a Grand Committee for the North, on lines similar to those of the Welsh Grand Committee, to meet three or four times a year and to discuss local social and economic problems more adequately than is now the case. The

Motion was not put down for fun, for we felt and still feel that some way should be found for the problems of the North-East to be discussed in a way divorced from national affairs. I do not know whether the two Newcastle Members opposite are smiling at the idea—

Mr. Short: What does my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) mean by the "two" Newcastle Members? There are four divisions of Newcastle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upom-Tyne, West (Mr. Popple-well) represents one and I represent the Central division. The two hon. Members opposite represent two of the Newcastle divisions.

Mr. Grey: It is a matter of mere reduction. One is "going west" and the other is "going east" at the next election, anyway.

Mr. Popplewell: Still wrong.

Mr. Grey: I am sorry. I got the two constituencies wrong. I was referring to the two hon. Members.
The North-East is often at a disadvantage compared with the rest of the country and that is especially so with unemployment figures, which are always higher than those of any other part of the country. That is why we have seized this opportunity to put our grievances before the House. But it would be better if the Government would set up a Grand Committee for the North as I have suggested. It would relieve pressure on the House itself while enabling us to debate our problems properly. I hope that this suggestion is conveyed to the appropriate quarters and seriously considered.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my hon. Friend believe that the setting of up a North-East Grand Committee would make any difference, so long as we had the present Government?

Mr. Grey: No, but we must always bring pressure on the Government and that would be a better way than this.
Four Ministers ought to be sitting on the Government Front Bench tonight— the President of the Board of Trade, who is not there, but whose Parliamentary Secretary is, the Minister of Labour, who is present, the Minister of Power, who is present and the Minister of Transport,


who is not present. They are the four guilty men in this business. They are responsible for the grim picture in the North-East.
Despite the speeches of hon. Members opposite about the success story of the North-East, the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for its present unemployment figures and for the despondency being created there and the fear of many of our constituents. He is to blame because he did not listen to the warnings from this side of the House and to one or two of the bleatings from the other. He is to be condemned because he has allowed events to overtake him.
The next on my list is the Minister of Labour, who, I am glad to say, is present. All that we get from him are figures setting out the unemployment position. I remember on one occasion referring to the right hon. Gentleman as a glorified bingo man because all that he did was to dish out figures. He continually quotes the unemployment figures but never lifts a finger to reduce them.
I come next to the Minister of Power. There have been a lot of pit closures and a lot of redundancy, but my main complaint is that the Minister has allowed closures in areas where there are still plentiful supplies of coal. This is a shocking state of affairs.
Finally, there is the Minister of Transport, with his policies for shipbuilding and ship repairing and the contraction of the railways.
These four Ministers stand condemned because they have acted independently. It is no wonder that hon. Members on this side of the House get the impression that they are not even on speaking terms. If any Ministers should work in close co-operation with each other it is these four, yet they seem to work in separate water-tight compartments. I doubt very much whether they have ever had joint discussions about the problems of the North-East and how best to solve them. This is a shocking state of affairs and cannot be tolerated any longer. The sooner these four Ministers get together to discuss the problems in the North-East and find an answer to them, the better it will be for them and for the area.
What is there to prevent the Minister of Power from telling his right hon. Friends what he expects the position to be in the next five years? What is there to prevent him from discussing with them the problem of redundancy in the area? What is there to prevent the Minister of Transport from telling his right hon. Friends what he expects in the shipbuilding and the ship-repairing industries over a given number of years? What is there to prevent him from telling them about his policy for the railways? What is there to prevent them from getting together to discuss what is likely to happen in the next four or five years?
As a result of this kind of information, the President of the Board of Trade could set about building advance factories to absorb the redundancies that will occur when pits close and the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries contract. This is surely the only way in which the North-East can be dealt with on an equal footing with the rest of the country.
I hope that the Minister of Power will give us an assurance that pits will not be closed if there are large reserves of coal in the area. It might be argued that certain pits should be closed for economic reasons, but I do not believe that any pit should be closed if there are adequate reserves of coal. To do that is silly, because it means sacrificing the future for the present, and we cannot afford to do that.
The recent Ministry of Labour report is a grim affair. I know that the tight hon. Gentleman will try to claim a measure of success for his policy by saying that the overall unemployment figure is down by about 2,000, but when that is measured against the fact that many young people have not found employment at all the picture is not so bright. I understand that on 18th June 2,549 boys and 1,145 girls wore unemployed. This is the highest figure for many years.
Compared with last year there were four times as many boys and three times as many girls unemployed. In County Durham, Wearside and Tees-side, between one-fifth and one-third of the boys who left school at Easter have still found no employment. That is bad enough, but the immediate picture does not seem so bright either. The Ministry of


Labour's report said that it looks as though in many places the absorptions of Easter leavers will not have been completed when the summer leavers become available in a few months' time. "No jobs for hundreds of school leavers" is a bad headline to use, but it is quite true.
This is a north-eastern problem which should be dealt with immediately. The country cannot afford to waste human material like that and, therefore, I urge upon all the Minister concerned to strive with might and main until all these young people are given their chance to -make their own contribution to the wealth of the country and to their own well-being.
I should like to conclude with a reference to the general picture of unemployment. At the present, 42,143 are unemployed. This morning I received a petition from 400 workers in Spennymoor. They are 400 frightened men. They are afraid of the future. I have also received a letter from Spennymoor, part of which reads:
I have been asked to convey to you the anxiety of the furniture workers in the Spennymoor area. At present, we are doing an Army contract which is giving full employment, but the orders for domestic furniture would not warrant a two or three-day week and, therefore, unless further Government contracts are placed with the firm short-time and redundancy will follow.
The present unemployment situation is aggravated by short-time working.
This is a grim picture. There is three times the national average of unemployment in the area. No one cam be happy about it, least of all the President of the Board of Trade. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been here. He should be listening to the whole debate. He would then realise how deeply we feel about this. Hon. Members opposite may say that they dislike unemployment, but we on this side of the House loathe it.
The Government should get down to this great problem. This is why we arranged to have this debate. I assure the Ministers concerned that they can save themselves from further debates of this kind only by getting down to doing more for the North-East than they have ever dome before. I hope that they will spare no effort to remove this scourge of unemployment from the area. If

they make the effort asked of them, the debate will have proved worth while. If they do not, I can promise them another debate like this in future.

9.9 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and hon. Members may wonder why I, who represent an eastern constituency, should seek to take part in a debate on the North-East. I do so for three reasons. First, it was my job for many years to sit on the Treasury Bench and listen to debates. I listened to many debates about coal. I thought then, and I still think, that hon. Members who speak with practical experience of the coal mines are some of the most sincere and loyal Members to their trade of any in the House of Commons.
I felt then, and I still feel, that they were very often mistaken. Particularly, I remember an impassioned speech by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in which he suggested how terrible it was that there were fewer men employed in the coal mines. Today, we ought to throw up our hats when we hear of fewer men being employed in the coal mines. The job of digging coal in filthy conditions is shocking, in the twentieth century, and this feeling is reinforced when we have a debate on pensions and we hear of the pathetic cases of men whose lungs have been pitted with coal dust and whose future is so grim.
Therefore, I intervene to say that, in my view, as quickly as possible, if we have to continue using coal, mechanisation of the mines should take place, and the conversion of coal into other forms of power, even underground, should be welcomed. I believe—and I am surprised that no reference has been made to him so far—that Lord Robens is doing a very realistic and excellent job as chairman of the National Coal Board. I do not believe that it is right, either economically or in the interests of the men themselves, that for the sake of finding employment we should continue to operate mines that are uneconomic. In these days, when we have a great deal of industrial work going on, it is not necessary to put a drag on the rest of industry in the country by working uneconomic mines.
My second reason for intervening in the debate is that I know a little bit about the area, because a brother of mine was adopted as a candidate for the old division of Houghton-le-Spring, before the war. He, like many others, joined up among those famous Territorials the Durham Light Infantry, and, again, like so many others, is now only known on the roll of honour in the wonderful cathedral at Durham. As a result of his connection with Durham, I made many journeys there before the war and since, and I have seen the conditions and have many friends there.
My third reason is that in my own constituency, in Suffolk, there js the small town of Leiston, in which, three years ago, there was a very high degree of unemployment. Fortunately, we have been helped by Government action, because a mile away, at Sizewell, there is a new atomic power station being built, and the transformation which has taken place in that small town is almost beyond belief. I know full well the despondency that comes to a town when there is a certain amount of unemployment, but I believe that the Government which I support have taken great many steps to try to influence industry to go where labour is available. It is certainly cheaper in the national interest that industry should go where labour is available, and where there are shops, schools, houses, roads, sewers and everything else, as is the case when moving into a new town.
I should not like to conclude without making one practical suggestion. Government help is given to firms which will move into certain areas, but this is mostly financial help to firms which are in being. Thousands of pounds, perhaps millions, are given to firms, like Col-villes, for instance, and smaller amounts to those which go on trading estates. I should like to make a plea for the young man who has educated himself and perhaps proved himself in business as having a good deal of ability. I am thinking of a young chemist or someone like that. We are a very inventive people. Most of the great ideas in industry throughout the world have come from the British people, and if a young man like that has a good idea which would be distinctly useful in the export field, I should like to see him get a

grant of perhaps £500, or even £300, to start him off. He may employ only four or five people, but a lot of such cases would mount up to a considerable total.
Consider the interest that the competition organised by the Daily Mail has aroused in bringing forward people with bright ideas who want capital to develop them. I put this suggestion to the Government. Would it be possible to arrange for a small panel to consider cases of young people—the sort of people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred—so that they could get a little more financial assistance? It is very difficult to start a business today. I believe that we should lose on half of those cases, but the other half would be a real asset. If there is such a need in the North-East, as I am sure there is, and there are people with ideas which would benefit the export trade, it would be useful if they knew that they could get assistance if they were to go to the North-East.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) has given further evidence that the House is united in its approach to the subject that is being debated tonight. He has also illustrated how in his own division, where there was temporary unemployment, the introduction of new industry rejuvenated the place.
Therefore, I think there is still hope for us in the North-East. We certainly have a right to expect better treatment than we have so far had from the Government. There have already been several debates on the need to bring further industry to the North-East, and this is another attempt tonight, when we have a special debate on the subject, to bring to the notice of the Government the need for more industry.
I was in my constituency on Saturday last and I took the opportunity to ask many people whom I met, "If you had to make a wish, what would be your first requirement?" Many of them said "Win the football pools", but (he majority said, "A job, because without a job we have no self-respect or dignity, we cannot pay the rent, and we have


difficulty in buying the food and clothes that we want." Unfortunately, this is happening in the North-East at the moment. There would be no unemployment if a proper approach to the problem were made by the Government. It is a Government responsibility. The Government have cut down production and have stopped investment in essential industries. They have prevented building and industrial development in the right places.
This primarily is the cause of the temporary unemployment in the North. It is certainly the reason for the slackness in the steel industry. The responsible leaders in the steel industry, and the Iron and Steel Board Report, say that steed production this year will be lower than it was last year. Last year it was 2½ million tons down.
Reference has been made to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade is not present, and I regret his absence. He should have been here. In the Evening Gazette on 7th July one of his spokesmen is reported as having said:
It is the belief of my Department that the recovery of the iron and steel industry on Tees-side will make an appreciable impact on unemployment.
Somebody from the Board of Trade ought to tell us on what authority that statement was made, because it is contrary to the views of those in the steel industry.
Let us not forget that steel is basic to our whole economy. Steel production should be 'expanded. Certainly it should not be contracted. The iron and steel industry is, in fact, the foundation of all investment in this country. We should do everything possible, not to stop but to increase the production of steel. We must do everything we can to build up the country's economy so that we can improve our standard of living and help the less-developed parts of the Commonwealth, and basic to that is increased steel production.
We have to face the fact that in the steel industry, in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, and in the engineering industry generally, new methods and techniques are developing, modernisation is taking place, and as a result it is calculated that thousands of the men now employed will not be employed in the future. We are all for that, so long as it betters the workers'

standards of living and gives the consumers a better deal, but the very fact that those men will be put out of work places an obligation on the Government to do something to diversify industry.
Many industries ancillary to the basic industries could, and should, be brought to the North-East Coast, and the Government have powers to do that. To achieve what I know is the aim of us all who are taking part in this debate— a viable economy in the northern region —we must not only diversify industry but get a more balanced economic structure and alternative forms of employment. Unless we do that, the area's prospects will be limited.
The Government are being very unwise in not using their powers to stop industry going to already over-congested areas. To allow that means drawbacks on the whole economy. A greater demand for labour in those areas will send up costs. There will be a greater demand on less space for the new factories that have to be built, and industry cannot modernise and expand in a very congested area. In addition, there are added burdens on the rates, because very often extra services such as sewage and refuse disposal have to be provided at very heavy expense whereas, if industry is taken to parts of the country where those services are not over-employed, it can bring benefits, not only to the North-East but to the economy as a whole.
If the Government will only use the powers they have under the Distribution of Industry Acts and the Local Employment Act, they really can do something. I have had experience of this. When I was a Board of Trade Minister, I had responsibility for a time for the distribution of industry policy, but I had an unfortunate experience in the constituency—Rochester and Chatham—that I then represented.
Rochester and Chatham were dependent on two industries, the Royal Dockyard and the Short Bros, aircraft firm. Consequent on the ending of the war, shipbuilding and repairing at the Royal Dockyard was run down, and thousands of the workers had to be dismissed. In addition, Short Bros, had to close down for national reasons. That was a difficult decision for me to make, because that aircraft industry was a vital constituency interest, but in the national interest


I agreed that Short Bros. must go from Rochester to Belfast, but I saw to it that under the Labour Government's distribution of industry policy alternative industry came into the district.
There was the electronics industry, mechanical engineering and tractor making, the manufacture of oil pumps, and the production of electrical goods —a whole diversification of industry— and there was over-full employment. Indeed, the very prosperity that resulted possibly cost me my seat because, in 1959, the Prime Minister visited the constituency and said, "This booming area and this full employment is due to the Conservative Government." If the policy applied to the North-East had been applied to Rochester and Chatham, there would still be unemployment in those towns—

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that his party started the drift to the South-East?

Mr. Bottomley: Certainly not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay), who introduced the distribution of industry legislation as a civil servant, will confirm that it was drafted precisely to keep industry out of the South and the Midlands so that it could go to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. This happened.

Mr. Proudfoot: My geography is a little hazy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help me. Where is Chatham?

Mr. Bottomley: I repeat that the obligation upon this Government and upon a Labour Government is to send industry where there is unemployment. There was unemployment at Rochester and Chatham at that time. The Government had an obligation to send industry there, as they had an obligation to send it to Wales, Scotland and the north of England. If there was unemployment in the Eye division, as the hon. Member for Eye said earlier, it was right that the Government should take action to send industry there. I am saying that the Government should now take action to ensure that employment is provided on the North-East Coast where there is at present unemployment.
What I had to do in the case of Chatham was not done without some

solace. The more stable part of the constituency, Chatham, made me a freeman, I am very glad to say, and the citation, was that I was able to bring full employment and a balanced distribution of industry. I believe that if we had a Labour Government now and a Minister in charge we could do this for the North-East Coast.
I am a relatively new person in the North-East. Perhaps like a good many other Londoners I am inclined to think of the grime, dust and dirt. I have travelled the world a little, but I can honestly say that I have never seen such beautiful country as when I went for a trip in the North-East last Saturday. We should be talking about this and encouraging industrialists to came to see it for themselves. Apart from the pleasant surroundings, there is also some of the best labour in the world, as I knew from past experience. There are seldom any industrial difficulties there. The other day the Archbishop of York said that there should be help for releasing the vigour and vitality which arc to be found in the North but not in the South. I am not sure that I agree with him altogether about there being no vitality and vigour in the South, but I am certain that vigour and vitality are to be found in the North. It ought to be used. I hope that the Government will give us a much more satisfactory answer tonight than they have in the past.

9.28 p.m.

Commander J. S. Kerans: I do not intend to detain the House for long, as I had an Adjournment debate a short time ago on the subject of unemployment in my constituency. However, I want to point out to the House that The Hartlepools have the highest unemployment rate in the North-East. It is 6·4 per cent. at the moment. For a long time I have done all I can in the House to draw attention to the high rate of unemployment there and try to get the Government to take action. I have great sympathy with my Durham colleagues on the other side of the House on their efforts. In an area of persistent high unemployment greater action is needed by those responsible.
I hear quite a lot about the many new industries which are coming to the


area. However, since I became a Member of Parliament in 1959, when unemployment stood at the rate of 5·9 per cent., incidentally, there have been remarkably few industries compared to the number of school leavers, which continues to rise. We have not yet reached the bulge.
I am faced with the steel recession. There is a very large new steel works at Greatham, at the edge of my constituency. A large sum of money was spent on it. Within a few months of opening, those running it were forced to close the blast furnace so the number of unemployed rose. Because no orders came in a problem was created which still faces us.
I want to mention B.O.T.A.C. A number of industries have asked me to obtain assistance from the Board of Trade. Inevitably, the answer is, "No". We are not told why we cannot have any assistance. We cannot be told why.
I ask for a more liberal attitude in helping a firm over financial matters and the taking of a slight risk in an area of high unemployment such as mine. I do not think that that is asking too much in these days. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land, South (Mr. P. Williams), who spoke about distribution of labour. We cannot force labour into areas where it does not want to go. We cannot expect men who live in the area to seek employment elsewhere when their roots in the area are so firmly planted.
There is a large port in my constituency which has now ceased building altogether. In June, 1956, its tonnage of building was 52,000 tons, but by June, 1961, it was nil. It is now dealing entirely with ship-repairing and ship conversion, which is only a temporary palliative which cannot last for very long. Firms cannot expect the Admiralty to give them orders overnight. I quite agree with what has been said from this side of the House, that firms must go out to find their orders throughout the length and breadth of the land. There is plenty of skilled labour available in shipbuilding in my area, but, if there is not full employment there, it will go to other areas and it will not come back. There are plenty of means of obtaining long-term finance for building and many

private firms which can do that apart from Government assistance.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has now left the Front Bench. I raised a question with him a short time ago. Hope was given to some of us in Newcastle a year ago of the possibility of a power station being built not far from my constituency. It is a great mistake not to look at that matter again. I do not mind exactly where it will be built, but it would at least give some help in bringing industry to the area. It is little help to say that the question may be considered in 1970, for that is a very long way ahead. I hope that the Minister of Power will reconsider that matter, because it is serious. There is a port on which £2½ million has been spent but it is suffering from lack of shiping in the area.
We must put the North-East on the map, especially my constituency, which not long ago someone said was somewhere near Liverpool. The whole problem of the North-East area, particularly Tees-side, is basically one of communications. We want a good airfield somewhere near the area. We tried to get one at Middleton St. George, but that operation is now out of consideration. Surely the Minister of Aviation could look at that matter again in order to extend existing facilities of the area.
There is also the question of railway facilities to enable people to get to The Hartlepools, which sometimes is a very difficult job. Those who have to change at Thornaby in the early hours of the morning will know what I mean. Access by road could also be improved. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has approved certain plans of extensions of the A.1, in my constituency, but such facilities are needed in the whole area and they should not be made merely piecemeal.
I wish to tackle my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the question of advance factories. I ask him to reconsider that matter. I know all the arguments about them being uneconomic, and that they may not be sold, but for an area of high unemployment that question should be considered again. I should like to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I have a Remploy factory in


my area. Surely it could be extended and the facilities increased and thereby the employment in the area increased. I have a large housing estate with large vacant areas—any number of football grounds—and this state of affairs has existed for a long time.
May I also refer to unemployment in the building industry, where a recession is now conning about? I have received a letter from the Northern Counties Regional Federation of Building Trade Employers, which ends as follows:
My members inform me that many would-be purchasers of new houses are not able to go ahead because they cannot dispose of their existing premises. Sales of older houses have in fact fallen away since the Government suspended last July the house purchase scheme under which building societies were able to borrow Government funds to finance the purchase of houses built before 1919.
Will my right hon. Friend consider exempting the North-East from that provision while unemployment persists?
May I also refer to the Middlesbrough highways programme now being discussed in a conference of Tees-side authorities? This is a question of communications in the area. Unless communications are first-class, it is no good asking industry to go to the area. I hope that that will be taken into consideration.
I feel that the North-East is somewhat conservative in its outlook—and I do not mean politically; the people are inclined to remain as they are and not to change. In other words, we need a new look in the area. Labour relations are fairly good and strikes are almost non-existent. Let us put the area, and especially my constituency, on the map. The North-East needs help now—quickly and urgently. This requires a team effort by a large number of Government Departments, including the Ministries of Transport, Aviation and Labour and the Board of Trade, and perhaps the Admiralty. We must end the uncertainty which undoubtedly exists in the area.
I will conclude with a quotation from a leading article in my local newspaper:
Clearly, The Hartlepools need more help than they are at present receiving in attracting new industry.
That is correct. We need help in the North-East, and we need putting across to the public. In the last few days we have had the advent of Telstar. Why

cannot we advertise the potentialities of the North-East by the means of Telstar to the Americans and Europe? Let us hope that some initiative will be taken in this matter, which is vital to the north-east.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), to whom I listened with great attention and, I hope that I shall not offend him in saying, with great approval, complimented hon. Members on the fact that there had been no moaning about the position of the North-East. I am sorry for him that the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) has, at any rate from that side of the House, destroyed the distinction which the hon. Member found in the debate.
I do not want to speak for every long, but I want to recount my difficulty with, the Ministries. I share with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South the belief that new industries coming into this area should attempt to establish themselves in their own factories. There is one in my constituency that has done exceedingly well. It is not dealing with an industry that is typically native to the North-East. It manufactures ladies' lingerie. It has established the most excellent relationships with the whole of its staff. It has expanded and it now wishes to obtain part of the factory that was provided by the Government when it moved in. It is asked to calculate its costs for it on the basis of 6¾ per cent. I do not think that that is the way in which to help the people who have helped themselves. They are entitled to a rather better deal than that from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and I went to see the President of the Board of Trade a few weeks back. We wanted to talk about the Local Employment Act, because so far neither of our two boroughs has received any real assistance from it. We went to inquire of the President of the Board of Trade whether he could not arrange fox us to get some of the benefits that have come to some of the other areas.
The right hon. Gentleman said to the two mayors and the town councillors


who were present, to my hon. Friend and myself, "I will explain to you Government policy." Then, of course, we heard all about the pipeline which, I understand, is Government policy. Things seem to be put in at one end but, somehow or other, they never get along to the other end. The President of the Board of Trade assured us that while he could not promise us anything on that occasion, if only we would be patient and wait for a few years there would be a tremendous upgrowth of employment in our area with new industries. We declined to thank him at the end of the meeting.
More recently, I went with the majority of my hon. Friends in the representation of County Durham to see the Minister of Power about the failure, to which the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools alluded, to build a new generating station in the county. He listened to us politely and then said, "Well, you do not need a new generating station in your area. We have taken into account all the employment and all the need for power in your area, and somewhere about the 1970s is about time for you to get a new power station." I heard one hon. Member suggest that there should be meetings between Ministers when they have to consider the area. After considering those two interviews, I am bound to say that the Minister of Power made on Government policy a better case for his attitude than the President of the Board of Trade did for his.
The area whose plight has been the subject of discussion in this House this evening is one that has a proud record in the last 200 years in the industrial history of the country. It has carried on great industries. Its ships are recognised throughout the world for the skill of their construction and for the way in which they are navigated. One in seven of the members of the British Mercantile Marine come from my constituency. They suffered about the same proportion of the casualties in the Mercantile Marine during the Second World War.
Shipbuilding is carried on by firms who build up teams of men who work together and have a great pride in their own firm and their own handiwork. The teams of Shipbuilding Securities Limited, just before the Second World War, were

broken up, and when we needed them most during the war it was very difficult to find them, because they had been scattered so far. We found two of the most skilled men of the shipbuilding yards in my own constituency, building barges in Birmingham, for use on the canals. If this depression in the shipbuilding trade, and the ship repairing trade, for that matter, also continues we shall have a repetition of that kind of thing, and a commercial, industrial, maritime community, such as we are, cannot afford twice in one generation to have that experience.
We do what we can to help ourselves. Firms in my own constituency have started new industries and have carried them through successfully. When I go to inquire about B.O.T.A.C. I get exactly the same treatment as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for The Hartlepools. Let us be quite certain of this. The President of the Board of Trade is quite impartial in the way in which he prevents any expansion in this area, even among people who are striving to help themselves. I looked with hope when the knives were being flashed. I thought of my interview with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Power and I had hopes about their survival. Their policy remains, I am afraid. Whether one is knifed or whether one is not, with this Government nothing is ever going to change.
This great district we have been discussing tonight has still high potentialities in its population, in men and women who for centuries have prided themselves on the part they play in the industrial life of this country, and they have the right to demand from this Government something infinitely better than anything which has been hinted at so far in their endeavours to maintain and extend the part they would like to play in the industrial life of this nation.

9.48 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am a little sorry that the development of this debate is, so to speak, taking a political aspect.

Mr. Short: How does the hon. Lady know?

Hon. Members: She has only just come in.

Dame Irene Ward: I have not just come in. I came in specially to listen to the opening speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Short: And then went out again.

Dame Irene Ward: A great many hon. Members opposite were not in for the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have been here all the time."] Nevertheless, I am very sorry if this debate is going to develop into a political controversy, because I think that the future of the North-East Coast is far too important to be dealt with on a political basis.
I should like to congratulate right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on deciding to bring forward on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill the problems of the North-East Coast. Because I have been in the House of Commons for a very long time now, I have watched a great many of the developments on the North-East Coast. Consequently, I want straight away to tell the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that I sometimes take a very anxious view about its future. I realise that a very great deal needs to be done.
I take exception to the fact that in the opening speech from the Opposition Front Bench the whole history was not told. I believe that one serves the interests of one's part of the country even if one is critical, as I often am, of one's Government. It is much better to put the facts fairly and squarely and truthfully. It is completely untrue to say that the present Government, or any Conservative Government, have not taken a keen interest in the progress of the area and the employment of those living and earning their livelihood on the North-East Coast.
I very well remember that, following the period of great unemployment in 1929–1931, naval orders were cancelled which vitally affected shipbuilding interests on the Tyne. That was done by the Labour Government of the day— though I think it is true to say that they were then kept in office by the Liberal Party. The true history must be told. When for international reasons—I shall not argue about them—naval shipbuilding orders were cancelled, that vitally affected employment in the shipyards on the North-East Coast.
I always like to pay tribute to the fact that after the National Government came to power it was Mr. Stanley Baldwin who first had the idea of trying to attract industry to those areas of high unemployment. The first trading estate, the Team Valley Estate, has now developed into a great industrial estate. The Team Valley Estate and the Treforest Estate in South Wales were the creative idea of Mr. Stanley Baldwin and those who supported him in those days. Only a year or two ago on the Team Valley Estate a plaque was unveiled paying tribute to the long period that it has been in being.
I am equally glad to draw attention to the West Chirton Trading Estate, which was established in my constituency through the far-sightedness of the local authority trade and commerce committee and the creative ideas of the hard-working town clerk of the Tyne-mouth Borough Council. The great Formica works was established on that estate. The first sod for the building of that great establishment was cut in 1938.
I am very willing to pay tribute to the fact that when the Labour Government came to power, in 1945, the late Lord Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps produced new Acts which developed the original Special Areas Act which was the contribution of Mr. Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s. Therefore, it is quite right for me to say that both the Conservative Party and the Opposition joined together in trying to devise an entirely new policy for attracting industries to the areas where they had all their eggs in one basket.
I think that it is sometimes wall to remember that it was the greatness of the North-East Coast in shipbuilding, coal mining and engineering which made them put all their industrial development into the basic industries. Now that the basic industries are contracting it has been of advantage to that part of the country to have been as great in the field of industrial development in the basic industries as it was in the early part of this century after the First World War.
I want to emphasise that the whole idea of attracting new industries to an area like this was the result of the united efforts of both parties. I pay tribute to that even if hon. Members


opposite do not like to pay tribute to it, because I think that it is only right and fair to do so.
I agree that an area must sell itself. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Elliott) paid tribute to Mr. Chetwynd for the way in which the has attempted, through the North-East Development Council, to sell the North-East Coast, but, again, I must point out there are other ways of selling an area. I see no reason why I should not pay tribute again to my own Borough of Tynemouth, where, with the exception of one area which it is specially keeping, the whole of the rest of the industrial estate has been used for redevelopment of very important industries. That work was done entirely by the trade and commerce committee and the officials of the County Borough of Tynemouth.
Sometimes I hear comments from other local authorities that the Tynemouth local authority is not contributing to the North-East Development Council, but I must say that we carried a large amount of our expenses on the ratepayers to the very great benefit of employment in that part of the country. I am glad to say that developments are taking place there. We have had an extension in commercial plastics, an expansion of the Ronson factory and we have this great Formica undertaking and a whole variety of new industries which have played a very successful part in helping to solve the employment problem on Tyneside because all the employment in those factories does not necessarily come from the County Borough of Tynemouth. They employ people from Wallsend on the other side of the river, and we feel that the county borough has made a great contribution to employment on Tyneside.
We on this side of the House have recently scored quite a success on coastal shipping. Although I joined my colleagues in fighting hard for that success, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for agreeing to the safeguards for coastal shipping which we eventually got into the Transport Bill.
We were very anxious that coastal shipping, which is very important to trade and commerce on the North-East Coast, should be safeguarded, for we

feared that this trade would have a rough time at the hands of the British Transport Commission. The shipping interests and hon. Members on this side of the House went to work in a big way on the Minister. He is rather difficult to pin down, but we did pin him down and I am glad to say that Amendments in another place were accepted. My hon. Friends on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for listening to the representations for the safeguarding of our coastal shipping.
I am getting a little tired of hearing about jobs in the pipeline. I would like to know exactly what those jobs are. They always seem to be couched in thousands. I think that it was the hon. Member for Sunderland, North who mentioned that there were 20,000 jobs in the pipeline. What are they?

Commander Kerans: There are 11,000 for men and 9,000 for women.

Dame Irene Ward: That does not tell me what the jobs are. What industries are these people to work in? It is very important to know what the developments are to be.
I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), for I want to say something about the future for our school leavers. It seems that our organisation for giving training in skills to our school leavers does not seem to be as effective or as comprehensive in the North-East as in other parts of the country.
I have always understood that part of our problem in engineering is due to the fact that we have so many very small firms. Here I want to pay tribute to Messrs. A. Reyrolle and Co., which has done some of the most magnificent training schemes in this country in the post-war years. This firm has always been a great asset to Tyneside and there are several other great firms which have also co-operated magnificently. I pay tribute, also, to Messrs. C. A. Parsons, Ltd., and to Messrs. Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson, which are doing a great deal of research into marine propulsion with, I hope, benefit to employment on the North-East Coast in due time.
But I understand that our engineering works vary tremendously in size and work and that it is, therefore, not so easy to ensure good training schemes and apprenticeship schemes for school leavers. I know that a new training centre has been set up on the south bank of the Tyne, but I should like to know what else my Government have in mind. I can assure hon. Members that there are great anxieties among parents whose children are due to leave school this year about what can be offered for the future. That is of tremendous importance.
There is also the difficulty of "selling" the North-East Coast to the world. People in managerial capacities in any of the works of the North-East Coast who have gone there from other parts of the country will always say how much they appreciate the labour under their control. We have the best workmen in the country. I always like to say that during both world wars all Army commanders liked to have in their regiments men from the North-East Coast, for they found them co-operative, resourceful, responsible and lively. Part of our difficulty is that we do not tell the world what good quality workmen we have.
I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North referred to restrictive practices in the shipbuilding industry. There were interruptions from hon. Members opposite when he was speaking, but I notice that when the shipbuilders and the boilermakers, under the control of Mr. Ted Hill, reach wage agreements, it is always said that if wages are increased the unions will take steps to end or scale down restrictive practices, so increasing the competitive efficiency of the shipyards. The shipyards on the North-East Coast, especially on the Tyne and Wear, have a reputation second to none. Our ships sail to the contract day, which is most important in international competition for shipbuilding orders. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will agree with me that if, during wage negotiations, agreement can be reached to improve the competitive efficiency of the labour in the yards, that lends colour to the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Lady is falling into the error which she is trying to avoid—that of denigrating the North-East Coast. When we are talking of shipyard workers, we should also consider ship-repairing. Our repair yards have attracted a great deal of work from the Continent over the last twelve months and have done so in the fact of intense competition because of the extremely hard work by the men engaged on repair.

Dame Irene Ward: I made it perfectly plain that our labour on the Tyne and the Wear is second to none, and I know that in the face of great competition we have attracted a great deal of repair work to our yards. The largest ship-repairing yard in the world is in my constituency and I watch its achievements closely and with great pride.
All I am saying is that to have ship-repairing we must also have ship building, and it would help the ship-repairing yards not only today but in the future if we were as competitive in ship building as we are in ship-repairing, and I repeat what I said before the hon. Member for Sunderland, North interrupted me, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North was right in saying that there was room for the abandonment of restrictive practices.
I do not think that the employers take nearly enough trouble to put their workers in the picture. I think that there could be a great deal more cooperation between both sides of industry, and I sometimes think that this would be a good job for the Minister of Labour and the new Parliamentary Secretary, who, of course, was my Parliamentary Whip before, and to whom I now offer my congratulations. I am sorry to lose him as a Whip, but I wish him well in his new office. I think that if the big employers were to take more trouble to put the facts of life before the workers and explain to them the need for increased efficiency they would really get their co-operation.
I have not very much to say about the workers except to praise them, but I have quite a lot to say about some of the trade union leaders who seem to be much more concerned with power politics than with creating industrial efficiency in this country. I think that if employers played a greater part in


putting their workers in the picture some of the difficulties would be overcome.
I do not want to detain the House any longer except to say that the Government could do a great deal more to help the North-East Coast. I do not want either to turn this debate into a criticism of Dr. Beeching, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made a very important point. When Dr. Beeching went to Newcastle and said that we might have to face the closure of the Tyneside electric railway, he was talking in terms of whether the railway paid or not. I am not complaining about that because that is his job, but it is not good public relations. What he did was to depress the railwaymen, and it is not possible to attract people into an industry if they do

not think that they will find secure employment in it. Neither was he doing vary much good to those industrialists who want to go to the North-East. I gather that Dr. Beeching is coming here on Wednesday. I took great exception to the speech that he made in Newcastle, and I should like to give him a talk about good industrial relations.
I do not stand for the employers, or for the men, or for the Opposition, or for the Government. I stand for the North-East Coast and I support the Government because I believe that even with some of their deficiencies we are more likely to get the interests of the North-East Coast safeguarded by them than we are by any other Government which anybody could possibly envisage.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) started by saying that she wanted to get the record straight. Therefore, for the sake of the record, we had better point out that she left the Chamber immediately after the opening speech of the debate and did not return until immediately before she was called to speak. She had not heard one of the intervening speeches but I hope we may look forward to her presence for the rest of the night.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the hon. Member give way so that we may have the record straight?

Mr. Short: The hon. Lady is a fine one to talk about keeping this question non-political. She is obsessed with politics. She of all hon. Members in the North-East opposed, and opposed ferociously, the formation of the North-East Development Council. She wrote a letter to the Press when it was on the point of being established, attacking it violently. It was a letter which was quite untrue and inaccurate. The hon. Lady's local authority, as she said, is the only one between the River Tweed and the Cleveland hills which does not support the North-East Development Council. I do not know whether the authority was advised by her. If it was, then it was very wrongly and badly advised.
Every other local authority contributes one-fifth of 1d. rate but the attitude in Tynemouth is "I am all right, Jack." I do not think that Tynemouth has anything to congratulate itself upon. It is not only the matter of a North-East Development Council. It has also refused to come into a scheme for a regional airport. Tynemouth will not come into any regional organisation whatever. The parish pump principle operates entirely, from the hon. Member downwards.
I am glad that my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) has returned to the Chamber. I am sorry that he did not get a job in the recent massacre, but he probably gave the

reason why in his own speech when, to his credit, be said that has father earned 21s. a week. That is the reason why he did not get a job in the Government. Every member of the Government with any working-class connection whatever was sacked. I am not the only one to say this. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said it the day after the sackings. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is sitting opposite. I have always felt that he should be sitting on our side of the House.

Mr. Montgomery: In view of the fact that my views are so congenial to the hon. Member and he is my constituent, may I be assured of his support at the next election?

Mr. Short: There is an even better man putting up at the General Election in Mr. Rhodes, and I shall vote for him.
The hon. Member stressed the good industrial relations in the North-East. He might tell his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) that, because it is the sort of humbug that we heard from his hon. Friend that really injures the North-East. Mr. Ted Hill is his hon. Friend's great bogyman, but I am told by industrialists on the Tyne that Mr. Hill is regarded by them as one of the most responsible and co-operative of trade union leaders, and I think that we should pay tribute to the work he does.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Would the hon. Member regard the sentiments expressed by Mr. Hill in a recent speech, which I quoted, as being conducive to good labour relations and a high rate of production in the shipyards on the Tyne?

Mr. Short: When I look at the lifetime of work given by Mr. Hill and then listen to the sort of speech the hon. Member made, I know who has made the greatest contribution to labour relations and production.
There are some days in the Parliamentary Session when the Government choose the subject for debate. There are other days when the Opposition choose it, but there are some days, like today, when


the Opposition choose the subject but the debate can take place only with the good will of the whole House. It is extremely significant that, despite the pressure of previous business, this debate started exactly on the minute when we had hoped it would start. It is equally significant that the business so far today has been a debate on disarmament, which is probably the central problem in the world, followed by perhaps the most important personal debate for many years, and then a debate on the North-East.
That is very significant. It is a recognition by this House that the Government are not paying nearly sufficient attention to regional problems. This is a small country, but each of the geographical regions has its own distinctive problems. The Kingdom of Scotland, the Principality of Wales and the much older Kingdom of Northumbria have been completely ironed out into a dull uniformity with the less illustrious areas of this country.
I believe quite sincerely that the electors are becoming perturbed by this neglect by Parliament of specifically regional problems. I do not think the result in the West Lothian by-election was so much a vote in favour of Scottish nationalism as a protest against the over-centralisation of government here in London and the neglect of regional problems, with the consequent failure to tackle local difficulties. I believe that the House and the Opposition are to be congratulated on this debate, and I hope that the Opposition will work out some machinery before the next election for the discussion of regional problems in the next Parliament, when we shall have a Labour Government.
Certainly, the Government deserve no congratulation whatever. As my hon. Friend said, a group of us, in December last, put forward the idea of a Grand Committee for the North, similar to the Welsh Grand Committee. I do not see why these things could not be worked out so that we could have three or four debates a year in the mornings, with the Ministers present, to deal with our regional problems. The present Leader of the House scarcely gave the matter a second thought. I do not think that the Government deserve any congratulation

either, because their only instrument to deal with our regional problems is a completely fatuous, fiddling, ineffective instrument known as the Local Employment Act, and a good deal of what I have to say will be about this Act.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: It is a jolly good Act.

Mr. Short: Since the war, there has been considerable economic growth in this country, and the basic problem we are considering is that although this economic growth affects different regions in different ways, the growth has been unequal as between different regions of the country. Oddly enough, the areas which were the growing points of the economy in the 19th century and the last industrial revolution—the North-East, Yorkshire and South Wales—are now the areas where least growth is taking place. In areas like the North-East, there is, as many hon. Members have said, a decline in the basic industries of coal, shipbuilding, ship repairing, heavy engineering and steel. This has had two results.
First, it has led to lower industrial profits. I picked up the Newcastle Journal today and read the annual Report of Richardson, Westgarth, the Wallsend marine turbine, electrical and general engineers. The nominal value of its shares is 10s., but they now stand at 4s. Its profit has dropped in a year, from £231,000 to £67,000. That is the first result of this decline in the basic industries—lower industrial profits. The second is that there is a much lower level of personal incomes in an area like the North-East, and I very often think that people from other areas do not appreciate the fact that personal incomes in an area like ours are much lower.
These two factors—lower industrial profits and lower personal incomes— mean that there is less capital available in the region for industrial expansion or for the replacement of obsolete housing and town centres. It is very important, as the Civic Trust has just stressed in its excellent booklet, to realise that there is a connection between housing and the depression and decline of our basic industries. It is very important to realise that this decline of the older basic industries is not simply a matter of statistics or graphs. It is a matter of


dire sociological consequences. In other words, it affects people and their lives. This is, after all, the fundamental cleavage between hon. Members opposite and us.

Mr. Rupert Speir: Nonsense.

Mr. Short: It is a question of the relative importance that one attaches to the balance sheet or to the welfare of the people. This, in my view, is the fundamental cleavage between Toryism and our philosophy—how much importance one attaches to people and how much one attaches to the balance sheet. The Tory says, "Does it pay? How does the balance sheet look? Is there any profit in it?"

Mr. Proudfoot: rose—

Mr. Short: I cannot give way. Time is getting on and other Members wish to speak. Hon. Members opposite say, "What about profitability?" when deciding whether a pit or a branch line stays open. We on this side of the House say, "How does it affect the people? How does it affect welfare and well-being?" The low rate of economic growth inevitably coincides with the low rate of urban renewal, and the lower rate of urban renewal is a disincentive to economic growth. So we have a vicious circle which the present Government have shown no sign of understanding in their policy for financing local government—as witness the general grant system with its monstrous injustices—or in their policy for stimulating regional economic growth. In neither of those aspects have the Government shown any appreciation of this problem.
A few months ago we had a debate on shipbuilding in which I took part and made what I thought was a very good constructive speech. I put forward a three-point policy but the Minister of Transport sat there doodling in all his monumental—I was going to say insignificance and perhaps that is not inappropriate—and took no notice whatever. When he wound up the debate he gave no inkling of a policy for shipbuilding, and to this day we have had no indication of a policy for shipbuilding from the Government.
As for coal, profitability is the only criterion used by hon. Members opposite. I venture to tread in this field with some caution because I am very much a layman here. This is our only indigenous raw material, and I should have thought that we ought to have focussed all our scientific knowledge on this indigenous raw material. I do not think we have begun to exploit the possibilities of coal. I think that a day will come, if the subject is tackled properly by a future Labour Government, when we shall cease to think of coal primarily as a fuel. I am sure that it has tremendous possibilities in new materials like plastics. The only policy of this Government is to look at each pit and to say, "What does the balance sheet say?" That is their only policy.
With regard to transport—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) is doing a lot of shouting but has not made a speech yet. In one of those speeches which are never made but which appeared in the Newcastle Journal today, he discussed rural transport. All the transport in the 600 square miles which he represents—I pity him for that—is drying up. Shortly he will have no railways left except the main line from Newcastle to Carlisle. All the lateral lines are going. The buses are packing up too.
Here, again, there is no question of "What is the contribution of this branch line to the economic well-being of the region?" The only question is the old Tory one, "What does the balance-sheet say?". The Government are governed by the accountants. The well-being of the people of Alston and Haltwhistle does not concern this lot; they are concerned only with, "Does the railway line from Alston to Haltwhistle pay?".
We have a new Minister at the Board of Trade—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, although it is difficult to know who are the Ministers now. There is another Minister at the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Pennith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)—

Hon. Members: No.

Dame Irene Ward: Wake up.

Mr. Short: We cannot keep a check on all these changes. Anyhow, the Minister of Labour is here, and perhaps


he will convey what I now have to say. In the Penrith and The Border constituency a line has been closed. It is not a branch line, but the only cross-Pennine route between the Carlisle-New-castle railway and the railway through Skipton; the only cross-Channel railway—

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon Member talking about the tunnel?

Mr. Short: The bon. Member gets more fatuous every time she speaks— [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] She used that word about one of her own Ministers only a fortnight ago, so perhaps I can use it now. The hon. Lady is the Member for Tynemouth; she must not imagine she is the mouth of the Tyne.
The line through the constituency of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has been closed. I wrote to the Prime Minister about it, because I had an interest in it. This railway is particularly relevant to the economic life of the North-East. The Prime Minister's only retort was profitability—"It doesn't pay, therefore it has to be closed." That is the Government's policy for transport and for coal; for shipbuilding they have no policy of any kind. At the same time, they cam find, and I do not complain about it, a subsidy of £240 million a year for the farmers—or more than that. That is not given because farming is an industry that is basic to several industries, as coal and transport are; it is simply a subsidy that goes into the pockets of private individuals—

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting (that the agricultural subsidy is designed to put money into the pockets of the farmers? It is a consumer subsidy. The most elementary student of modern economics realises that if the agricultural subsidy were removed tomorrow, the farmer would either cease to produce or would produce at an economic price. Therefore, in the second instance, as it would be, the consumer would pay more for food. It is a consumer subsidy.

Mr. Short: If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North is trying to tell me that the £240 million, or more, goes into the pockets of the consumers it really is Alice in Wonderland. The

agricultural subsidy goes into the farmers' pockets—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
In addition to all this, the North-East has, I believe, the smallest major road building programme in the country. We have recently had a small section of the A.1 renewed—a by-pass in the village of Pity Me, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey). The Whole of the A.1 as far as Durham is double carriageway but, here, the Minister of Transport has made a single carriageway on a new by-pass. That is how the Government treat us over our roads.
I turn to the Government's general economic policy and its effect on the North-East. The general economic policy of the Government has been one of our greatest difficulties in the last decade. The main regulator used by the Government, the manipulating of credit, has been applied to the Midlands, where it may have been needed. It has been applied to the South-East, where it may have been needed. It has been applied also to the North-East, where it was not needed. It is like a mother who has a child with a tummy ache but she gives the castor oil to the whole family. That is precisely what the Government have been doing over the last 10 years. They are neither intelligent enough nor diligent enough to apply their medicine only to the areas where there is inflation. They have ignored our suggestions for making the credit squeeze selective and have gone on applying it equally to the North-East as the Midlands.
So much for the Government's general policy and its effect on us. I come now to their specific policy for industrial promotion. This Government demolished the really effective machinery established by the Labour Government. One hon. Member said that he knew of no other way of doing this. There was another way of doing it. This Government demolished it. They erected in its place one of the most footling, fatuous instruments ever devised by a Government, the Local Employment Act.
I want to give three reasons for using these very rude words about that Act. First, as a number of my hon. Friends have said, it has produced so far in the


two years it has been in operation less than £½ million to assist industry in the North-East. It has produced £14 million for Scotland. I do not complain about that, but our population is half that of Scotland. Yet we get less than £½ million. Ten million pounds have gone to Merseyside. The North-East has had £400,000. Every so often we hear of jobs in the pipeline. I have been here for 11 years and the figure has always been round about the 20,000 mark. The North-East would be a land of milk and honey if all these jobs came out of the other end of the pipeline. What has really happened in the North-East? Since 1951 unemployment has more than doubled and, according to the preliminary report of the census, 86,000 people have migrated from the North-East in 10 years. These two figures add up to far fewer people at work relative to the population. This makes nonsense of this perpetual story about 20,000 jobs in the pipeline. That is my first complaint about the Local Employment Act.
My second complaint is that the Act is based upon a really fantastic premise, namely that assistance should be given only if the percentage of unemployment rises above 4·5, without considering numbers. On 18th June, the Northern Region had 42,000 unemployed. I understand that the figure is rather higher now. These 42,000 are concentrated in a relatively small area of the region. Because the percentage is only 3·2 over the whole area, most of the area cannot get any assistance under the Act. Social developments—housing, schools, and so on—in recent years have tended to move people further and further from their place of work. It is an interesting fact that 1½ million people who work in London do not live in London but in areas outside. In spite of this change in social habits in the last 10 years, the Government persist in the foolish and spotty, to use the word employed by the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth, solution of scheduling—

Dame Irene Ward: I did not call it spotty.

Mr. Short: —only the local employment area, not the local authority area. The criterion is a local employment area

with unemployment in excess of 4·5 per cent. It produces this kind of result: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, part of which I represent, has 4,022 unemployed, Ilfracombe, which covers approximately the same area of ground, has 173 unemployed but, because the 173 represents a higher percentage than 4·5 per cent. and 4,022 does not, Ilfracombe is scheduled and Newcastle-upon-Tyne is not. This method of ignoring numbers in a big city or built-up area and going entirely on percentages is the wrong way of proceeding. I do not say that Ilfracombe should not be scheduled, of course it should, but other areas should also be scheduled.
My third reason why I think that this is the wrong instrument to use is that I do not think that B.O.T.A.C. works properly. I do not impugn their motives, but with the best will in the world the businessmen who comprise its membership are bound to give undue weight to the profitability of a project. I do not think that it should be composed of businessmen. An hon. Friend and I visited the Board of Trade about a firm which wanted to make bricks in the area but was turned down by B.O.T.A.C. I knew the man who wanted to establish the brickworks. I knew his father and the whole background and I could not imagine a more reliable man. He wanted to establish the works in Hetton-le-Hole, a scheduled area, but the Board of Trade was obliged to say "No". I do not think that B.O.T.A.C. in its present form is the right body to advise the Government.
The Government's policy has kept the North-East short of credit when credit was urgently needed. To use a veterinary term, they wormed us for inflation when in fact we were suffering from deflation. The Government's specific policy, the Local Employment Act, has been an almost complete failure in the North-East because, in spite of it, there are far fewer people relative to the population at work in the region. This has meant that in the North-East far more people are condemned to live in slums and general urban renewal is longer delayed there than in the Midlands or the South-East.
I once more pay tribute to the Civic Trust for pointing out the connection


between these two things. The Government have failed us because they are either not intelligent enough to diagnose our malady or just because they do not care. They give a subsidy of £240 million to the farmers—and there are only 900,000 people employed in agriculture —and a subsidy of less than £½ million to the 2 million people of the North-East.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South who said that we should never cease to tell people about the North-East and its achievements. He spoke about its achievements. Perhaps I may say a word or two about the area. In my view, it is one of the most attractive parts of the country in which to live and work. To North-East Members of Parliament who do not live there I can recommend it. I can recommend it to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South as a really good place to live in.

Mr. P. Williams: If the hon. Member wants to make cheap jibes about my not living in the area, he should know that I was born and brought up in Newcastle. Cheap jibes of that nature cut no ice with me.

Mr. Short: All I said was that I recommended it to hon. Members who do not live there, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. He does not live there and I recommend it to him. I recommend it to those on my side who do not live there.

Dame Irene Ward: What about the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He does not live there.

Mr. P. Williams: It was a stupid point to make.

Mr. Short: It was a very good point. Those who represent the area should be prepared to live there. When I get out of the train at Newcastle I breath the fresh air of the North. The area has a bracing climate, a very low rainfall and a very high sunshine rate. The area has the finest beaches in Britain along the Northumbrian coast. It has a number of delightful valleys. The hon. Member for Hexham lives in one of them. It has the great, sweeping glory of the fells—

Dame Irene Ward: Moors, not fells.

Mr. Short: The hon. Lady knows nothing about the North-East. The fell sweeps up to Teesdale from the Tyne.— [Interruption.]—I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) will have something to say about that.
The North-East has some of the grandest people in the country. They are kindly, hard-working, humorous, intelligent people. It was the people of the North-East who brought civilisation and Christianity to Britain.

Mr. A. R. Wise: Nonsense.

Mr. Short: It has ancient towns like Newcastle, new towns like Peterlee and Aycliffe. It has educational facilities—

Mr. Wise: This is the first time I have ever heard that St. Augustine was born in Newcastle.

Mr. Short: One always felt that the hon. Member was one of the most inappropriately named Members of the House. It has educational facilities second to none. It has the third oldest university in the country, residential, in Durham, which has a similar atmosphere to Oxford.

Mr. P. Williams: If the hon. Member's speech lived up to his name it would be better.

Mr. Short: Of course, the hon. Member does not like speeches that expose things as they are. In his speech, the hon. Member said that we must not criticise the things that are wrong in the North-East.

Mr. Williams: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Short: I am talking about some of the things that are right. We have in the North-East the third oldest university in the country—

Dame Irene Ward: That came before the Labour Party did.

Mr. Short: But not before the hon. Lady. In the Newcastle section of the university, which is shortly to become an independent university, we have modern faculties which are right into the atomic age. For those people coming into the area who want public schools, we have in the North-East one or two of the best in the country, including the


oldest in the country. We have the finest Norman cathedral in England. We have in the North-East the most extensive Roman remains north of the South of France. We have co-operative and progressive local authorities Who will go out of 'their way to help industries coming into the area.
I believe that this North-East is a very good land in which to live and to work, but this vicious spiral of declining major industries, of low industrial profits, low average earnings and, consequently, reduced capital available for industrial expansion and urban renewal, is forcing the area down. The decline can be arrested and the spiral can be broken only by some sort of new and imaginative policy, both for industrial promotion and for the the financing of local authorities, in a region such as this, because that is equally important.
I believe that the Government are utterly incapable of such a new initiative. In the name of the people I represent, I say to the Government that we are absolutely fed up with their incompetence and with their indifference to the North-East. Middlesbrough served them with notice to quit. On behalf of Newcastle, I reiterate that and say the sooner the better.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: I have been brought to my feet by the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). I have never seen so many crocodile tears loosed off in such a short time. The hon. Member said that he goes to the North-East week-end after week-end and gats off the train at Newcastle Central station. He then said what wonderful things were available in the region.
But what does the hon. Member do? Week-end after week-end, the gets into his car and speeds out of the region across to his cottage, not in the North-East region, but across in (the Lake District, far away from the place. I have never heard such humbug in all my life.
However, hon. Members opposite, by bringing attention to the problems and difficulties which the North-East is facing at present, are doing the North-East a

good service. I personally am glad that they have taken this opportunity to bring home to the Government, and to Members on the Front Bench, the seriousness of the problems in the North-East and the need for dealing with them in a sympathetic and considerate fashion. I am quite sure that with the new -Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and with the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trader—I am glad to see him in his place —both of whom have good northern if not Scottish blood in their veins, both of whom have intelligent and imaginative minds, we in the North-East will get sympathetic consideration of our problems.
I really do not think it helps the North-East to exaggerate the situation and I would say to hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central, that to exaggerate one's case is to weaken it. That is what I think the Opposition are doing at the present. Everyone knows that throughout the world today, in this country and generally overseas, we are going through a difficult period. There has to be a step back before we can go forward once again. That is a worldwide feature of the situation at the present time, and, of course, it does make our problems much more difficult for us in the North-East.
But every one of the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite this evening has been as weak as was the platform the Durham miners put up for Members attending the gala at Durham on Saturday—and which could not even stand the weight of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition without collapsing. Their arguments collapse in much the same way.
The country ought to remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) pointed out, that we in the Conservative Party have got a far better record in maintaining employment and in tackling the problems of unemployment than have the Opposition. The Opposition have got a very short memory in these matters, conveniently short. When they are talking about the wonders of a "planned economy," the wonderful legislation which they introduced—before the Local Employment


Act was introduced—and which did not allow the Government to anticipate trouble hut allowed the Government of the day to deal with it only when the problem had arisen, it is time that we reminded the country of the record of the Socialist Party in tackling unemployment. Let us remind the country of the facts, and not of the fiction.
I remember that well, because I started to take an interest in politics in 1929, just before the General Election of that year. I was a little Socialist-inclined in those days, but that was soon cured by my going to a meeting which was addressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). That put me on the right road once again. But I remember how leading members of the Socialist Party, including a prominent member of it in those days, Miss Susan Lawrence, promised that if the Socialists were returned to power in the 1929 General Election they would cure unemployment within a fortnight? What happened?

Mr. E. Fernyhough: They did not get power.

Mr. Speir: They took office—even though they had little support. No doubt, they will try to do it again. No doubt, unable to support themselves, they will take office with Liberal support.
That is exactly what they did then— and within two years they more than doubled the number of unemployed. I think that is worth recording that. They appointed a special team to deal with employment policy. They appointed Mr. J. H. Thomas, of the National Union of Railwaymen, and he was assisted by a gentleman, still very much alive—he was performing in Trafalgar Square yesterday—Sir Oswald Mosley. They more than doubled the number of unemployed, which went to very nearly 3 million in two years. These things ought to be remembered when the Opposition come forward with specious promises about curing unemployment and all the other difficulties of the North-East.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is talking about days before

many hon. Members on this side of the House were born?

Mr. Speir: It is because I realise that there are some babes about the place that I say they should be reminded of what happened in the past. We have been through all this in the past—these promises about curing the situation and what Socialism can do. We are told that if we went in for the "loss" system we could have prosperity all round, full employment and a higher standard of living. We went through all this before —and the result was that the number of unemployed was doubled within two years, from 1¼ million to more than 2½ million. The public ought to remember that when they are told what would happen under Socialism. I am glad to have this opportunity of reminding people who were not born in those days what can happen when one has a Socialist Government. When the public in the North-East read tomorrow some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite in the debate tonight, they should remember what happened about Socialist promises in the past.
Many people say they would like to have a change. But one can have a change for the worse as well as one for the better. Tonight we have heard a great deal said by Socialists against the Local Employment Act. I believe myself that it is an imaginative Act. Although it has only just come into full operation, it has already brought many new industries to the North-East. It has brought us many thousands of jobs. Of course we want to see it doing more, and now that South Wales and Merseyside have been dealt with under it, I think we are fully entitled to press for the North-East to receive the same treatment. Although it has not cured the problem in the North-East, it is helping in the right direction.
I do not think that continual moaning and groaning by hon. Members opposite helps to bring industries to our area. I should have liked to hear some constructive ideas put forward by hon. Members opposite. I should have liked to hear about ways in which we could achieve more efficient production and more competitive conditions in this highly competitive world. All we have had has been gloom and moans and groans from hon. Members opposite. A stranger


listening to the debate would be justified in thinking that Tees-side, Tyneside and the Wear were as depressed and as red as the Clyde. But that is not true. We have first-class workers in the North-East who are prepared to be reasonable and co-operative, and it is a pity that we do not make more of that fact. They are workers who not only work well but respond to new ideas and methods and learn very quickly. That is a trump card which the North-East has to play at this time. All the industrialists who have gone there recently have said that they have been very pleased with the conditions which they have found there.
At a time like this it is worth remembering that the Socialist Party has always taken the view that if only we go back to "planning" we shall be able to have full employment. It is also worth remembering a verse written by a former Member of the House, Sir Alan Herbert, in the middle of the war when the Socialist Party, led by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, was calling prematurely for a Second Front. I cannot remember it all, but I recall the concluding phrase:
Dear old Uncle Joe,
We laud, we love, you,
But the nonsense—no!".
That goes for what hon. Members opposite have been saying tonight.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: It has been most interesting to hear speeches by hon. Members opposite. Most of them have been critical of Government policy. Those among them who have tried to support the Government have had to take as their theme something that happened in pre-war years. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) went back many decades, while the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) also had to go back to the period when the Labour Party were in Government but not in power. That was unlike her.
The hon. Member fox Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) attempted to support the Government but was hopelessly wrong with his facts and figures. The difference between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) was obvious and needs no

elaboration by me. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said that the Government treated the North-East as a forgotten area, whereas his hon. Friend said that they were not lacking in enthusiasm to cure unemployment there. I leave them to fight it out.
I welcome this debate. We on this side of the House have been pressing the Government, year in and year out, to do something for the North-East. We have met successive Presidents of the Board of Trade in our efforts and have always received the stock answer. This was particularly so from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, on whom now much depends, so I hope that he changes his tune. He always used to tell us, "You must get the North-East to sell itself a little better."
This is not only a question of the North-East selling itself, although that has a bearing. The position is that the area is losing its people at the rate of 14,000 a year in migration to London and the Midlands. New jobs have gone to the London area at the rate of about 15,000 a year, while the North-East has been losing people at the rate of 15,000 in 1960 and 14,000 in 1961, bringing the loss over the last decade to about 86,000 people who have had to leave their homes in the North-East in order to find jobs in the already congested areas of London and the Midlands.
Between 1952 and 1960, London, with 27 per cent. of the population, gained nearly 40 per cent. of the new jobs available in the country. What could this do but further denude other parts of the country of their people? In the City of London, there is a working population of about 500,000 during the day. During the night there is a resident population of only 5,000. That, to me, seems to make complete nonsense of the whole of the Government's arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, Central (Mr. Short) rightly pointed out that the Government are trying to deal with the economy of the country on just one broad basis, fighting inflation and deflation with the same monetary policy. It is a policy which makes nonsense. Nobody can justify the type of development that is taking place. From the skilled areas, if I may put it that way, migration has been, and


is, taking place, and it is those areas upon which our industrial potential depends for its basic products of coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding, and ship repairing. Yet many of the skilled men of these areas are having to leave this most useful productive element which means so much to our economy and go to the Midlands and to the London area where they are employed on non-productive work.
At the same time, one also sees in London, among all this non-productive effort, development in the electronics and motor car and engineering industries. So, while it may be argued that some skilled labour is required, the fact is that people have to move their homes hundreds of miles in some cases instead of industry being guided to those areas where the skilled labour already is and where it can do useful work.
I wonder how many hon. Members have seen the letter in today's Guardian from Mr. K. G. Collier, Principal of St. Bede College, Durham? Mr. Collier points out that we are suffering
… from a vicious circle of neglect; 50 years of declining industries (cotton, shipbuilding, coal) and 100 years of unplanned urban growth …
which, Mr. Collier says,
have meant low rateable values and low industrial revenues, which in turn have meant inadequate capital expenditure on urban landscapes …
and so on.
I think that this letter from the Principal of Bede College accurately describes the situation. It is well worth noting and, in short, it is a standing indictment of this Government. The Government are indicted for having done nothing at all to encourage any change in the pattern of industry in the North, or to attract new industries. They have gone even further. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and other Government supporters have referred to the development which has taken place in the North, seeking to claim that the foundations for this were laid in the prewar years.
That may be so—one does not want to decry efforts which have been made— but the real development of ancillary industry in the North-East has been that guided by the Development of In-

dustry Act, 1945. Through the operation of that Act we have seen nearly as many people employed on light industries as there are in some of our basic industries, and we are extremely grateful for it. Had that piece of legislation not been operated as it has been, with sense and wisdom by the Labour Government, the North-East would be in an even more difficult situation than it is today. Since the Tory Government took control in 1951 they have done their best to nullify that Act. Eventually they threw it overboard and introduced the Local Employment Act. I do not know what the hon. Member for Hexham is muttering about. If he wishes to say anything, let him stand up and become audible He should not sit there muttering as if he were in a four-ale bar around the corner.
The hon. Member comes to the North-East, to areas where he will not be strongly challenged, and says that the Local Employment Act has done a good job, but let us analyse what it has done. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) put down a Question today asking what was happening in the North-East about new factories and extensions which had been approved in the last 12 months. He was told that during that period only 14 factories or extensions had been approved by the Board of Trade out of about a hundred applications. That is disgraceful. All the time development is taking place in London and the Midlands. The Minister also told my hon. Friend that five new building grants had been given to the North-East in those 12 months and that industrial development certificates had been issued for 41 projects with a total area of just over a million square feet.
We have all heard much about jobs in the pipelines, but if we analyse the figures given in that Answer today we find that the jobs visualised in the dim and distant future may mean the employment of about 8,000 people which is quite a contrast with the 20,000 jobs in the pipeline about which we have heard so much, The prevailing rate of unemployment in the North-East is 40,000 to 45,000. In May it was 45,000, in June 42,000 and a little earlier it was 50,000, giving a rough average between 40,000 and 45,000. Against this we set


8,000 jobs, instead of the 20,000 promised. There are about 6,000 to 8,000 jobs available, with 45,000 people applying for them.
This is the state which we have reached again in the North-East. It is no wonder that hon. Members from the North-East have pestered Ministers at the Board of Trade and that we have this debate to try to stir the Government into greater activity, instead of their taking the line of least resistance, with the comment, "Do something for yourselves".
Let us consider what the North-East is doing for itself. For a considerable length of time the North-East Industrial Development Council was in being. For the most part it was controlled by a group of businessmen who did not energetically pursue an effective policy of development. They just footled about with the problem. Eventually, in spite of considerable opposition, local authorities began to play an increasingly important part in tackling the problem, and the name of the Council was changed to the Northern Development Council. Local authorities decided to contribute a portion of their rates to enable this Council—and appointed Mr. Chetwynd as Director—to carry out various projects, and at long last we can see some progress being made.
In Newcastle-upon-Tyne itself a new civic centre is being built. This project was discussed for 50 years but nothing was done until Labour took control three years ago. A new education precinct is also being developed, as well as a new shopping centre. The old houses in Scotswood Road are being pulled down and very soon this road wild be a place of beauty.
That is what local authorities are doing to try to make the area more attractive and to induce people to live in the North-East. Instead of the ugly industrial development carried out by the Tories in days gone by, the cities of the North-East are being redeveloped on more attractive lines, but where do the Government fit into this picture of development? By imposing the block grant system of payment to local authorities, the Government are stultifying the efforts of local authorities, and it is about time that they changed their policy and helped them.
I admit that the Government have helped by building roads, but it is not surprising that the Mancroft Civic Trust draws attention to the need for the Government to help local authorities in their development plans. For a long time the Government have made political capital out of the word "planning", but recently they have begun to talk about it. There has been some drastic pruning in Government circles, and I wonder what this really means. Does it mean that at long last the Tory talk of planning is to be put into operation? Is it to be put into operation to plan the general well-being of the nation and to increase production so that we can improve our trading relations instead of being at the bottom of the league table? I hope that the Government will plan to move some of the industrial development in the South back to where it belongs—the North-East —and to adjust the balance of population.
I hope that that is what the Government mean by planning, but I fear that their planning between now and the next General Election will be concentrated on how to bribe the electorate to forget the misdeeds of the past and to give them a further lease of life.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I hope that hon. Members opposite will not begin to interject even before I have begun my speech, because I am not one of those who fail to respond to interjections. Some of my hon. Friends have been waiting as long as I have to speak and I am certain that the Ministers present are anxious to get home. They will not be able to get to their beds until all my hon. Friends have had their go and therefore, if hon. Members opposite have any respect left—and I know they have not much—for their Ministers they had better be quiet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) said that the Government at long last had come round to the idea that "planning" was no longer a dirty word and that something must be done in that respect. Is not this an admission of Government failure both in the North-East and nationally? They have been saying for 11 years that Conservative freedom works. It does not work in the North-East. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor


anywhere."] The Government do not know why. They say, "We have been in power four 11 years and the country has economic problems and unemployment problems which we are unable to solve." They then appoint "Neddy," and Neddy is an admission of Government failure. It has been appointed to produce a plan which the Government cannot think of for themselves. In other words, the men who have been elected are handing over responsibility to men they have selected. Neddy will advise the Government on how to deal with the problems which the nation faces.
Three of the nation's industries which face very acute problems are mining, shipbuilding and the railways. The people of the North-East can do little about these problems. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) knows as well as I do that the problems of the British shipbuilding and repairing industry can be solved only by Government action.

Mr. P. Williams: No.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is no good saying "No." What are the problems? They are flag discrimination, subsidies, and flags of convenience.

Mr. Wise: High cost.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman says high cost. I might inform him that Palmers (Hebburn,) in my constituency, have just won a contract in face of the fiercest world competition. In order to execute the contract, when the ship docked at Liverpool 70 workmen were there to start the job. While the ship was being unloaded they were ripping out the berths, etc. The ship was taken back to the Tyne and the job will be completed before schedule.
There is talk about demarcation disputes in the industry. I wrote to the manager of the local employment exchange in my constituency and asked for the figures of demarcation disputes in shipbuilding and ship repairing. We have not toad one in the last six years. The labour record is comparable to that of any industry in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Pressed Steel?"] I am asked about Pressed Steel, but what about I.C.I. and

Prudhoe? The Government had as much control over I.C.I. when it decided to leave Prudhoe as I had over Pressed Steel not coming to Jarrow. The Government were not sufficiently interested.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said that we should never direct industry. But he voted for the Army Reserve Act which directs lads into the Army and keeps them there beyond their contract time. He sees nothing wrong in conscripting young lads and sending them here, there and everywhere; but to direct capital would be sacrilege and far more dangerous. It is far more revolutionary to direct capital than to direct the lives of human beings.
Hon. Members opposite have never hesitated when it has suited their purpose to conscript manpower. They have never hesitated to send it When they liked and where they liked.—[Interruption.]—If the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) will shut up muttering for a minute I will give way. If he spoke intelligibly I would be able to understand him. He has been muttering unintelligibly and it is difficult to understand him. Hon. Members opposite have always had their values mixed. They have always thought that capital, wealth and property were far more important than human beings.

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Member should find out what capital is before he denigrates it as he is doing. Wealth can only be produced by capital. Then the wealth can be Shared out.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not marvellous! One would think that when the world was created God put the capital here and let the people follow after. One would think that God created the gold, the banks and the insurance companies and then said, "Now, people, come and inherit this". The truth is that mankind produced the capital. Capital did not produce mankind. It is not capital that produces the jobs. The jobs are done. Every worker in a factory does a week's work and then he is paid. He has produced what he is paid before he is paid. The profit which the capitalist gets is the result of the week's work.
One would like time to give hon. Members opposite a few elementary


lessons in economics; but, after all, my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. I am sure that it would be educative to the Government Front Bench Members, some of whom are new to their jobs. I am sure that those who are new will be paying a visit to the North-East. They will be following the usual trail. They will come there full of hope.

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Member will "fix" them.

Mr. Fernyhough: When they leave we shall be devoid of help. They come along telling us what they are hoping to do and always, like Mr. Micawber, they are waiting for something to turn up. The truth is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made clear, that there is plenty of opportunity for the Government, if they want, to tackle this problem of unemployment in the North-East ox any other part of the country. The gross national produce last year was something like £23,000 million. The Government took some £7,000 million in taxes of one kind and another, and a lot of that must have represented substantial orders in a thousand and one ways.
Why should the Government not say to those firms supplying our schools and hospitals with furniture, equipment, medical requisites, and so forth, that they should put some of their factories in the North-East instead of aggravating the problems of housing, schools and transport in the choked Midlands and London areas?

Mr. Wise: I should like the hon. Gentleman to develop that argument a little further. If we are to move to the North-East the factories that are now making the stuff, what will we do with those factories? Just leave them empty?

Mr. Fernyhough: Hon. Members opposite just do not understand. We have never asked those people to stop making things. We have asked that they should be stopped from expanding in those areas. If half of the expansion that is taking place in the Midlands, London and the South-East had been compelled to go into South Wales, Scotland or the North-East we would not have had this problem at all. The

truth is quite simple. If it were in the national interest to do it—if we were at war—it would be done. There would be no hesitation then, because the national interest takes precedence over private profit and personal convenience—

Mr. Speir: 1945–50?

Mr. Fernyhough: I said in war, but let us take 1945–50. If, in my constituency and countless other constituencies in Durham, we could only have had from 1951–61 the new industrial establishments we had in 1945–51, we would not be discussing this problem tonight—and the hon. Member knows it. He knows that the Labour Government built factory after factory, and persuaded, cajoled or bludgeoned employer after employer to go to the North-East, and into South Wales and the Clydeside. They did not do that necessarily because they thought that it would be popular with the industrialists and the capitalists, but because they thought that it was necessary for the self-respect and the dignity of men who wanted to earn their living, and who had the right to do so but who were being denied that right.
When we talk about the national problem, I get sick to death to hear it said that unemployment is only 5 per cent. or only 3½ per cent. These are men and women, boys and girls—and, unfortunately, they are not like the dismissed Ministers. I picked up the newspapers at the weekend, and found that one firm after another was after the dismissed Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. They will find jobs. The fact that they were sacked does not mean that their wives and kids will suffer, or that they will be apprehensive about paying the rent, or have any of the difficulties that the ordinary unemployed men and women have to face up to.
Unless the Government are prepared to do more than they have done so far, what will be the position in the areas we now have in mind? The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) talked of what had happened under the Local Employment Act. He said that in 1929 the Socialists said that if they got to power they would do X, Y, Z. But we did not come to power. We never had


a majority Labour Government until 1945. I know that hon. Members opposite are so indifferent to facts that they have always said that we had majority Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why is not the Labour Party still in power?"] I will tell the House why— because we did not do what the Tory Government have done. I believe that this Government have written off all the old industrial areas, for one simple reason. There are only a very few winnable Tory seats there. They do not mind doling out £250 million to the farmers, because most farmers vote for them. They do not mind doling out money to the aircraft industry. They do not mind paying £50 million to the cotton industry for the bosses to do what we sent the Luddites to prison for, smashing machinery. But they do not do anything for the mining villages and the railway towns and the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Montgomery: York.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Tories will not have York and Darlington after the next general election. I do not think that the hon. Member himself will be here after the next election.
The figures which I want the Minister to take note of, particularly as regards the County of Durham, are these. In December, 1961 there were just over 20,000 unemployed and 2,400 vacancies. In other words, there were nine men and women unemployed in Durham in December, 1961 for every job which was unfilled at the labour exchange. In June, 1962, six months later, the number of unemployed had increased by 2000 and the number of vacancies had decreased by over 2,000. In other words, although in December, 1961 there were nine unemployed men or women or both for every job, last month there were fourteen men and women for every vacancy. In the six months period the position very much worsened. This is why there is growing apprehension and anxiety.
This applies particularly to the young people leaving school. What are we going to do? What right have we to expect young boys and girls of 15 to tear up their roots and transfer to other counties if there are not jobs available for them

in their own neighbourhoods? Does anybody believe that we can defend the system which necessitates boys and girls of 15 and 16, for whom there is no employment in their own counties, leaving their homes and being away from parental guidance? Does anybody believe that in the long run that is a good thing for the nation? These youngsters, at least, should be the concern of the Government. In my constituency when the August school leavers are added to those already unemployed, the figure is likely to be three times higher than it was at this time last year.
I had news today that 300 men were paid off at Palmers. They are to be added to those already seeking jobs which do not exist. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to make the kind of speeches they have made tonight, what I call sugar and vinegar speeches. They make a sugary speech to try to defend and please their Ministers, but they have to add a little vinegar because there are thousands of voters in their constituencies who might misunderstand their speeches if there were too fulsome praise of Ministers who are falling down on their jobs.
Hon. Members opposite have had eleven years of power. They told us:
Tory Freedom Works. Don't Let Labour Ruin It.
Now, after eleven years, they find they have no idea how to tackle the job, so they appoint "Neddy" and the only advice they give "Neddy" is to control wages. "Neddy" will fail if that is to be its main purpose and function because the trade unions will not stand by and allow wages to be managed while the rest of industry is completely free to do what it likes.
When I was interrupted I was about to make a point about the Local Employment Act. The Minister came to the North-East and said to the North-East Development Council, "We hope you will not be too parochial in your attitude. If there is help going to one town, I hope you will be happy about it because it is good for the North-East." What is the Local Employment Act except a parochial Measure? It does not treat an area. If there is 4½ per cent. unemployment it is on the list, but if there is 4·25 per cent. unemployment it is not on the list. What kind of planning can


there be with that? Under the previous Act areas were treated as regions and there could be regional planning. The present Act is a piece of legislation which takes each separate little community and treats it on its own and it stands or falls by the figures. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads, they should read the debates which took place when the Bill was before the House. There is no town, village or city in the Schedule where unemployment is below 4½ per cent.

Mr. Speir: Prudhoe.

Mr Fernyhough: There a blow is anticipated. It will fall when 700 workers lose their jobs in I.C.I. and have to seek work elsewhere. It would be better if the whole region were planned as one co-operative effort than to deal with the problem piecemeal.
Apart from the human problem, which is the greatest of all, the Minister should remember that as long as he allows this drift from the North-East, from Scotland and other areas where there is high unemployment the headaches for the Government will become bigger. When men transfer from the North-East, from Scotland or Wales to Birmingham, Coventry or London the housing problem is aggravated there. The transport problem is aggravated and the problem of school places and the problem of hospitals in those towns. At the same time in the areas from which those people come there are left problems of social capital the cost of which has to be borne by fewer and fewer people. It would not cost as much to keep some of the industries in those territories as, ultimately, it will cost the Government in having to face the ravages which this policy is causing.
The sackings last week in the Government were well deserved. There has not been a slaughter of the like since Herod set out to find Jesus. That slaughter is nothing to the slaughter that will take place whenever the next election comes, because no matter what hon. Members opposite may say, they know in their heart that they have not only failed the North-East, but they have failed the nation. The by-elections are making it perfectly clear and the General Election will simply reinforce the verdicts of recent by-elections.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Will Owen: The debate this evening has crystallised thought which has been in the minds of most hon. Members for many years. I hope that the Minister now has adequate evidence of the urgent need for a dynamic policy affecting the North-East. I give second place to no one in my admiration for the people and the facilities extant in the North-East, but I ask the Minister to recognise that he and the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for undertaking immediate action to deal with the problem that faces this section of the nation.
Like other hon. Members, I have listened throughout the debate to the commendation which has been paid from both sides of the House to the facilities that are extant in the area, and to the tribute paid to the skill of its workers and to the enterprise of its administration, both commercial and industrial. What seems to have been wholly forgotten, however, is that this has emerged largely as a reflection of the abysmal failure of a system. It has not emerged casually as a product over the last four years but has been reflecting itself in the whole decade that followed the Second World War with the complete inability of private enterprise to march in tune with the increasing tendencies of the twentieth century.
We were told earlier in the debate to recognise the changing pattern of our age. That commendation might be placed substantially at the foot of the managerial set-up in the north-east of England. How far have those people over past years marched with the trend of inherent changes of our time? How far have they been content to draw the substance of industrial productivity and fail to reinvest it in the expansion which is necessary and essential in the interests of the community? The verdict of history will be one of wholesale condemnation of their failure to make that essential adjustment.
We have been told that the need has been for increasing Government help and encouragement so that industry may be rehabilitated and given new life and purpose. When from this side of the House we have urged recognition of the fact that this can be achieved only on the basis of applied overall national planning we have been told that that in itself


will curtail and frustrate the enterprise which has been so popularly acclaimed —the freedom of Tory purpose. I would ask the Minister whether and to what degree he is prepared to take action in limiting the application of development certificates which seem to contribute to the encouragement of industrial development in both the Midlands and in the south-east of England. Why is it that more resolute action cannot be taken to curtail this increasing concentration of industry in the South which denies opportunities to the people of the North-East?

Mr. William Stones: Tory freedom.

Mr. Owen: Tory freedom, very largely, but surely, if the Minister is to undertake his responsibility in this respect, it is time that some very definite and direct action was taken to curtail the expansion here in the South, by refusal to endorse development certificates for more industry here in the South, so that industry may be encouraged to go to the North.
If it is said that the facilities are not there, on what count can that be argued? There is the facility of skilled personnel, there is the facility of existing technical colleges; there is in the North the great residue of willingness to meet the requirements of a changing age. All we plead for is that those people should be given the chance.
This applies not only to the problem of unemployment among the adult population, not only to the problem of contraction of the older industries. Is the Minister adequately aware of the tragedy which faces the younger generation now coming out of our schools and faced with the problem of beginning life on the employment exchanges? I am told that the Industrial Training Council in May of this year passed a resolution urging that the Government should give immediate consideration to the need for new industries in the north-east of England. The people who serve in that capacity have been working resolutely now for years to encourage the development of the apprenticeship system, to provide assistance and guidance to young people emerging from school, and

they are now reaching the point of frustration and discouragement.
In my own area of Ashington we have the lamentable picture that in the 12 months from May, 1961, to May, 1962, there has been an increase of 40 per cent. in the number of teen-agers on the junior employment exchange. The inability of young people to find work in our area is a reflection of the fact that 18 months ago we were able to encourage them to go into the area of Newcastle with its diversity of industry. Now that avenue of employment is closing down.
The south-east Northumberland area is concerned basically with mining. In fairness to the National Coal Board, it has stretched to the limits the opportunity of accepting young people for apprenticeship training. But that still leaves us with an ever-growing problem of finding employment for the young people. I recommend the Minister to hearken to the guidance of the juvenile officers there who are facing the oncoming school "bulge" with considerable anxiety. Is it not possible to give some encouragement to the development of industries in and around those areas so that the young people may be retained there with an opportunity for a secure future?
Otherwise we face a future of an ageing population, a declining community, and, frankly, the people of south-east Northumberland are not prepared to accept this. We feel that we have made our contribution to the general economic and social progress of the nation, and that we have a right to tell the nation, "Give us a helping hand so that we, too, may be able to step out into the future."
I call the attention of the Government to another problem. The County of Northumberland, facing the need to provide accommodation for overspill from the City of Newcastle, set out to plan new towns. The new towns can be largely conditioned by the availability of new industries. How far are we meeting the requirements in that field by ensuring that we not only build homes for people but provide industry in the vicinity so that they may have a modicum of security?
Frankly, I place the responsibility for the difficulties that face the North-East


squarely cm the shoulders of the Government because of their policy. Unless tonight we are given some assurance of a new approach to the problem, the verdict will come at the next General Election, when it will be a question not of new faces but of new policy, new determination and new hope for the people of the North-East.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. William Ainsley: Over the past few years I have likened the North-East area to a sort of no-man's-land. Our Scottish and Walsh colleagues can raise the problems of their countries in their respective Grand Committees, but since 1951 we in the North-East have been neglected by successive Tory Governments. It seems that the administration is stopped by a line drawn across the Midlands. Politically, the whole of the North of England beyond that line has been neglected.
In the North-East there are varying degrees of unemployment and depression. The position is most acute in west Durham. The result is that there is not only migration to London and the Midlands from west Durham but also migration to east Durham.
I represent the constituency in which I was born. I was brought up with the people. I know their feelings and anxieties. My constituency covers 264 square miles, embracing the high altitudes of the Pennines, with their forestry workers and hill farmers, and the agricultural and industrial areas of west Durham, with their small farmers and miners. At one time, this area produced coal that was the richest in Europe for by-products. But the National Coal Board was not allowed to sell that coal at its commercial price in the Scandinavian market.
I was secretary for 17 years of the miners' lodge in my township, and I know the value to the area of the sales to Scandinavia. I remember coming to London when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and the late Ernest Bevin appealed for more coal for the nation. We miners then gave up the five-day week to work six days; some worked seven days a week. Yet we were not allowed to get the commercial price for our coal. That policy has been to the detriment of the National Coal Board, and it is now "in the red."
The coal industry was regarded as a social service until the Government changed the pattern to one of commercialism. Now, uneconomic pits are to close. In my constituency, too, lead mines are being closed, although felspar is being extracted from the residue of lead mines. There are also limestone and sandstone quarries and by-product plants.
What have the Government done? The help received in the Crook area came under the Distribution of Industry Act, when two factories were set up there. We have sought to help ourselves through a local development board. I quote from a letter by the technical director of a large firm:
The Marshall Richards Company, a branch of the ' Marshall' Organisation, originated at Gainsborough in Lincolnshire in 1937. In 1946 …
and I ask hon. Members to note the date,
… we moved the Company to Crook bringing only half a dozen men with it. We now employ some 250 engaged in the manufacture of specialised machinery for the wire, cable, tube, and steel industries.
Our products are high grade machines weighing up to thirty tons, needing skilled craftsmen for their building, and a relatively large percentage of technical staff, including mechanical and electrical draughtsmen and technical salesmen for their design, development, and sale.
Marshall Richards machines have a reputation all over the world and have been sold to every industrial nation. Our exports have been fifty to seventy per cent. of our output ever since we came to Crook, a considerable quantity to the U.S.A. and Germany, a few to Iron Curtain countries, including Russia and China. Our success has been due in no small measure to our decision to locate our works at Crook.
To the east we have one of the most important and progressive industrial areas of England—the north-east coast—a reservoir of technical and skilled workers with engineering in their blood and in the blood of their sons, and with generations of hard work behind them.
To the west, the north, and the south, we are surrounded for scores of miles by some of the most beautiful and inspiring country in Britain.
The success of our undertaking, and indeed of any undertaking, is due to the quality of our men who carry it on. We brought our Company to the north-east to find the right men and also, strange as it may sound to those who imagine County Durham is one vast coal pit, to find the right environment".
That letter is signed by H. Richards, technical director of the Marshall Richards Machine Company, Ltd., of Crook. I could go on to speak of


another company, and will give just one comment by one of its directors. It is:
In conclusion, we feel that the Crook and Willington area could and should be developed into a thriving industrial area because, as we have found, the advantages of having a large factory in the district with pleasant amenities, far outweigh any possible disadvantage of being away from the centre of our industry in London".
That letter is signed by D. Latner, director of Ramar Dress, Ltd., of New Road, Crook.
One could go on quoting to show that we in the North-East have really tried to help ourselves. I have in the past taken to the Board of Trade the question of extracting limestone and manufacturing cement. We can find all the ingredients in our area; but what happens? All our requests have been turned down and it is at this point that we charge the Government with having sheltered behind the "phoney" Local Employment Act. In Crook we have 8 per cent. unemployment, and I say to the Minister that these are not statistics: they are human beings with hopes and aspirations; these are not merely percentages, but human beings who want to use their talents. They want to develop their own initiative in the national interest, and the Government are denying them the opportunity.
A fortnight ago in the House I referred to juvenile unemployment and gave a figure which links with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden); there are 2,432 young people out of work. That is Tory prosperity and Tory freedom. I put it to the Secretary of State for War that he no longer requires Brancepeth military camp training centre and I asked him to consult the Ministers of Labour and Education. But the Ministers have changed. That is the position with the Postmaster-General. Before leaving home this morning I turned the knob of the wireless to listen to the weather forecast and the news, and I heard, "This is the Northern Ireland News." We are sharing a programme with Northern Ireland. That is how the Government treat the North-East. In my area if they want good television reception they pay 2s. or 2s. 6d. extra a week. Yet there is talk of increasing the licence fee. I shall protest until the

people in the North-East get justice. With 2,432 juvenile unemployed in the area, there is a military training camp standing empty. Cannot the Government use it to give free industrial training to these people?
I have here a list from one of the local authorities showing the loss of rateable value through the closing of industries in the last three years. There has been an increase of £5,444 from new industry but a decrease of £12,374 as a result of industries closing, making a loss of nearly £7,000, with additions still to be made. That is one area—and there are five areas in the same position. The national average is £16 12s. per head of the population, but here it has been reduced to £8 6s. Loss of rateable value further depresses an area. That is the price which we are paying for Tory freedom and the challenge which faces the Government. Until the Government plan for the good of the nation we shall continue to wallow in unemployment and industrial depression.
Because of Tory freedom over the past this nation is failing in its national and internal problems. We have brought problems forward and offered solutions to many of them, but we still ask what the Government intend to do for the boys and girls, men and women, who want to make a contribution to the common weal. That is the challenge, and it is why we have brought the problems of the North-East before the House tonight.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) because I was born and raised in Crook Town, which is rather famous for its football team. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has gone about the task in hand in this way. In fact, I am disappointed with most of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We must stop this talk of failure and misery. It does not do us one little bit of good. This business of being prophets of doom does not help. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are the world's worst salesmen when it comes to selling the North-East. What they say hurts the North-East and causes a lot of unnecessary worry.
I understand the North-East. As a boy, I remember that there were 3,000 on the dole out of a population of 15,000 in Crook. I understand this area, and I believe that last year the last of the pits closed in my home town. The Local Employment Act is the best Measure of this kind that we have ever had in this country. It has far greater flexibility than ever before. Areas can be put on to the list and taken off again without the great political fuss that we used to have before, and I ask my hon. Friend to use this flexibility to the utmost because it is this that will help in the end.
But it must be remember that incursion in a development district is not the millennium. The problem is not solved because an area is designated a development district. There has to be industrial development, such as I have seen in my time. Incidentally, I remember the factory to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West referred being built. The local school gave the children the day off to watch General Gough turn the first sod on the site, and I am proud to say that my father served on the development committee.
What does it mean if an area is on a development district list? Hon. Members no doubt have experience of this. If a wife wants to move to another house, what does she do? She does not take the first one offered to her. She has a good shop round before deciding which house to have, and industrialists have the right to do precisely that. They are offered development by industrial development certificates and pushed to areas where they are needed, but it must be remembered that if we stop them developing in some areas no development will take place at all. This is a fact which we as a nation have to consider. We have to regard this as an industrialist going to look at a site. He looks at several before making his choice. The Board of Trade says that sites are available at X, Y and Z, and the industrialist looks at them all to decide which is the best one for the development of his project, and it is in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the community that he should pick well because part of the cost of his production is inevitably bound up with the site he chooses. Hothouse plants soon wilt, and I would rather have a locally created industry than any other kind.
When we talk about the North-East, it must be remembered that we have to create industries there. We have to sell the advantages of the area. We should point out that we have less congestion. I can drive from Scarborough to Newcastle and see only three sets of traffic lights. If I am lucky, I can get through all three while they are at green. Where else can one travel 80 miles south-east and see only three sets of traffic lights? I challenge hon. Members to name such a stretch.

Mr. Grey: It means that the roads are deserted.

Mr. Proudfoot: The roads are not deserted.
It must be remembered, too, that housing is easier up there than in the South-East and Midlands. We should make this fact well known. I served on a housing committee for eight years and We solved our housing problem, and as far as I know this happy state of affairs exists in other areas. Our only problem is slum clearance, and it must be remembered that in my division the population has increased 22 per cent. since the war. Most hon. Gentlemen have a slum clearance problem in their areas, but not the problem of providing new houses, and this ought to be made known to everyone.
Another selling point is that we have plenty of room for people to move into the area, which is a beautiful one in which to live. When I was in the Forces I remember arguing with people about the pit heaps and pit ponies in the area. At times I used to get mad with some of the chaps from other districts who did not understand mine.
I do not know how many National Parks we have. I think there are three, but to get to my division I drive through the one on the Whitby Moors. Tees-side is a perfect industrial development area with a river-rail transport and—though admittedly it needs improvement—road transport. On the edge of the river there is an industrial area, behind that a dormitory area, and behind that again a National Park. What could be a more congenial atmosphere in which to work? The quality of the labour is second to none, good, honest and hard-working. I spoke to Mr. Thorn, who has an electrical factory in the town from which


my grandparents came, Spennymoor. He is absolutely thrilled by the quality of the labour. The workpeople are invigorating and always looking for new ideas and he is completely satisfied.
I should like to quote from an article published, unfortunately, in the Northern Echo. Perhaps it should take a leaf from the Guardian and drop the "Northern" and so be more widely road. It is little good talking among ourselves. We must tell the outside world about the North-East. In the 10 years, 1949 to 1958, the strike figures for the North-East are fabulous and terrific and should be shouted from the house-tops. In shipbuilding 1.6 days were lost, compared with 9.6 in the rest of the United Kingdom. In other words, the North-East record was six times better. In mechanical engineering 0.4 days were lost, against 0.6 for the rest of the country. In electrical engineering, I am sad to say, our record was not as good as that of the rest of the United Kingdom. We lost 0.3 against 0.2 days. In metal manufacturing our record was 0.3 days against 1.3 days, in other words, four times better. In chemical and allied trades, excluding coke ovens, we lost no days at all, compared with 0.1 days for the rest of the country. We should go out and talk about this magnificent record. We should be careful of the image we present to the outside world.
We should also talk about the good industrial sites we have available. In this connection tribute must be paid to the North-East Development Council and other bodies, such as the Tees-side Industrial Development Board, which are making further researches so that sites shall be available on the shelf ready for industrialists to take over. I served on a development committee in my home town and I realised fully the need to have sites prepared for industrialists to look at. This is happening in the North-East.
We have express freight trains from Tees-side which deliver overnight to London. Docks and we have ports to serve all points of the European market. Let no one think that this is not important. I talked to an American manufacturer who delivers goods to Europe from King's Lynn. I did not know before that there was a port there.

He delivers to countries of the Common Market, to Denmark, Germany, France and Belgium, more cheaply than he can sell the product which he manufactures in his Northern Italian factory. Our ports in the North-East are bang opposite the Common Market countries.
I have details of sailings from Tees-side to all parts of the world. We should talk about this. I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will give details of the sailings from Newcastle and Sunderland. There are regular sailings from Tees-side to 227 ports. The maximum periodicity is one month, and some of the sailings are biweekly. There are also a further 157 ports which the pamphlet details as "inducement offers". This is important when we come to sell our exports. We should talk about this outside the North-East.
We in the North-East have a duty to perform. Let us lobby the economists and journalists who write in the Financial Times and such newspapers. There is a myth growing that the South-East will grow more rapidly than other areas through entry into the Common Market. That is not based on fact. There is an opportunity for the North-East to show that there are facilities there for getting goods into the Common Market, and I hope that every Member in the North-East will say so.

Mr. P. Williams: When my hon. Friend talks about sailings to the Common Market, will he bear in mind that it is usually the ships that sail from the North-East which are the first to get up the St. Lawrence Seaway?

Mr. Proudfoot: I could not agree more, though for three months of the year they cannot do it because the place is iced up. I hear that there is talk about sending submarines, for that reason. What should the Government do?

Mr. James Boyden: Resign.

Mr. Proudfoot: I expect that type of retort from hon. Members opposite. I am not pleading as if I were interested only in the North-East. I feel that I am a nationalist. We should consider the problem in this way. The Government are losing opportunities for national


advancement because they have neglected the North-East. I recommend my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to read the Financial Times leader of this morning. It says:
 Whenever business slackens, the effect is first felt in those parts of the country beyond the Tees-Exe line".
I discovered that the Exe is in Devon. The writer of that leading article went on to draw a line between those two rivers and said that it would be found that unemployment in London was 1·1 per cent., in Yorkshire 1·4—below the line—in the North-West 2·3, Wales 2·6, in the North-East 3·2, Scotland 3·3 and Northern Ireland 7·2—above the line.
The great problem which is facing us, and has faced us since the war, is that of obtaining growth without inflation. In the North-East there is opportunity for growth without inflation, though I acknowledge that when we have to have a credit squeeze in order to defend our currency we "catch out" in these areas. We look to the Government now to recognise this fact, and I do not denigrate "Neddy". That body has a part to play here, and we in the North-East should say to "Neddy", "Look at these areas. Your job is to find out how we can have growth without inflation. Here is an opportunity in these areas. Give us new industry and we will give you growth without inflation." That is the constructive way of going about it.
What else should the Government do? They should speed depreciation and investment allowances. This is important in my division. If the Government do this, the steel works will pick up production again. Those firms in the North-East which carry out gigantic engineering projects will be able to step up production. My accountant told me the other day—and I have no reason to disbelieve him—that if the manufacturer is allowed to write off his capital investment in one year it makes no difference to the Treasury. The Kennedy Administration in America is doing something like this. It is speeding investment and depreciation allowances. This is one way of stimulating growth in our economy.
I plead with my right hon. Friends to let the senile industries go. It is no

use trying to keep senile industries alive by public moneys. Hon. Members opposite think that we should keep coal mines going purely as a social function, to give people work. I do not believe that. If the coal mines are not profitable and cannot be worked for the national good, we must let them go and we should concentrate on the ones that can be worked profitably. That may sound harsh from the humanitarian point of view, but I do not believe that it need be that way.
A few weeks ago in my division Nos. 1 and 2 Britannia steel mills were closed. Those mills were virtually wooden mangles compared with the washing machines our wives now use. We must give industry the new tools and scrap the old ones. Those two mills went out 10 years after their planned time; the companies got 10 years' extra life out of them. They were the last steam-driven cogging mills left in Cleveland. I was glad to see them go, although I was sorry that they had to go now; I wish they could have gone when steel was buoyant.
One speaks of industries dying. The lead mines died in the North-East. Jet died in Whitby—it was knocked out by Spanish jet, which was cheaper. Whitby jet was the best in the world, and I am told that at one time there were 60 jet mines there. They all vanished in a short space of time. An ordnance survey of my division shows old alum mines there. I do not quite know what that was used for, but I believe it was used to get impurities out of iron and steel at that time. We must not fight against change. We must let the senile industries go, and make sure that the growth industries go ahead with all possible speed. It has been said that no capital has been spent in these areas, but hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent in my division in the most modern of industries.
I said that it sounded harsh to say that mines should go that are no longer viable, but I believe that we have to retrain the people displaced from them. The older people are a problem, but there are the younger ones. I lived through the anxiety of leaving Crook school at 14 years of age and wondering who on earth would employ me. I had that anxiety at 14, and I understand it


in others. We have to train and retrain these people. We must have schemes to deal with redundancy, and I look to the Government to do it.
When it comes to training people for technical jobs, I can only say that I was a fitter in the Royal Air Force at one time, and I can file a "thou" of an inch with the next man. I learned that job because war-time conditions demanded that I should; 16 weeks for the mechanics' course, another 16 weeks for the fitters' course, then three weeks on the instructors' course, and I was teaching people to be fitters, and enjoying every moment of it.
We have to use the Local Employment Act to the utmost, and we must not think in terms of areas that are too small. Hon. Members opposite fall into the trap of thinking that nobody wants to travel to work, but young people do not want to stay in the small local area; if they live in a village they want the bright lights of the small town. They are attracted to the more vigorous action in the towns. We cannot stop them— it is a human frailty. We have to think of travelling in terms of going 10 miles to work. We have to think of these development districts as gathering in people from an area of approximately 10 miles around.
The next thing is self-help. What can the North-East do for itself. It is doing quite a lot already, but it has to stop crying stinking fish. It has to get out and sell its wares hard and commercially. And we must stop calling it the North-East. It conjures up a certain picture in this House, and when people are asked about it they think of Jarrow and the hunger march, and think of us as living in a sort of Siberia. I can assure those who are not knowledgeable of the North-East that it is not a bit like that. I think that we should call it the Three Rivers Country, and reject the name of North-East. I have test marketed it and find many people in the North-East think that that is a pleasant name. It is a pleasant name. It lends itself to advertising and plugging. It presents a nice picture of the area and the three rivers point at the E.E.C.
We must accept change and sell change to the people in the North-East. We must let them know that it is in their

interests that things are changed. We must get the unions to accept more apprentices. I come across this problem every day in my division. They must in their own interests accept more apprentices. Employers must allow more apprentices to go out on day release. Ultimately our main shortage in the North-East will be skilled labour. We must recognise this. The trade unions must be asked to recognise it, because it is in their own interests that they should recognise it.
Further, we must start tidying up our towns and villages. Some of them are not quite what they should be. Nobody in the North-East can deny this. Some of the towns I know still look like they did when I was a small boy. I can take hon. Members to lots of ball alleys in the North-East. It is a game which was dying out when I was a boy. They are there as a sort of monument to the past. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) keeps wanting to save old factories as monuments. I want to get rid of them. I do not want to kept them. They are industrial litter. I do not mind one or two being retained, but the rest should be cleared out of the way.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Gentleman say when I said that I wanted to save old factories?

Mr. Proudfoot: If the hon. Member checks on some of his Questions, he will find that he asked that Question. I was tempted to put a supplementary question when he asked it.
Further, we must give the right priority to local roads. The priorities for roads in my division are shockingly hopeless. The county council eternally blames the Government. As far as I can ascertain, for local roads the Minister of Transport accepts the priority given him by the county council. The county council is opting out of its responsibility and trying to blame the central Government. I suppose that this is an eternal game between county councils and central Governments. We in Cleveland need better roads from the older areas—from the old ironstone mines—to the banks of the Tees, to the industrial areas. Some of these roads will be quite cheap to improve. They have right-angled corners in flat green fields and


sudden dips. One genius, who was the road engineer for the North Riding, decided that the safest way to organise traffic was to put bridges at an oblique angle to the road to slow the traffic down. That gentleman is responsible for more deaths than anybody in the North Riding.

Mr. Ainsley: The hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a county council, otherwise he would not say that. The highways and bridges department of a county council sets out a list and submits it to the Minister of Transport. He is the one who decides the priorities.

Mr. Proudfoot: The priorities are offered, suggested or advised by the county council. I served on a council for eight years. I remember bidding up what we in Scarborough could get from the North Riding County Council. People were shocked when I suggested that we should go for three times more than we expected to get. We got twice as much as we expected to get. I hope that my local authorities will do that.
I sometimes think that the North Riding County Council does not realise that my area has had a 22 per cent. increase in population, probably the most fabulous area of growth in Britain. This terrific growth has not satisfied us in Cleveland. We want further growth. We want a greater variety of industry. I acknowledge that this greater variety will come in good time when we get plenty of people trained. I am glad to say that the two major industries in my division are very enlightened. They train many apprentices. When we get that future picture, I am sure that some of the young chaps with skills will go off and start back-street factories. Probably in a few years' time, or perhaps 50 years' time, Members of Parliament will be complaining that there is congestion in the North-East and that back-street factories are competing with the big boys. I do not know. I am confident that in time there will be plenty of small back-street factories. This would give enormous flexibility and resilience of employment.
Has my right hon. Friend any news of a factory which is empty in my division on the North Skelton Trading

Estate? It is of 50,000 square feet. Has my right hon. Friend any news of possible tenants for the factory?
I am sorry to hear hon. Members opposite denigrate the pipeline of jobs to a division. We all ask this question. In my constituency there are 3,000 in the pipeline and everyone asks, how long is the pipeline? To show how I trust the pipeline, I quote what was said in the Scottish debate last week. The President of the Board of Trade pointed out that the number of jobs in the pipeline estimated for 1960 to 1962 was 55,000 and by May, 1962, 51,000 of those jobs had materialised and there were still seven months to go. He gave additional figures after that, so this gives me some hope that these figures will prove correct.

Dr. Bray: Will not the horn. Member agree that there is constantly a failure to admit how many jobs will be lost altogether? Unless we strike the net balance, to talk about the pipeline is useless.

Mr. Prondfoot: I agree with the hon. Member, but those figures are very difficult to get. I went to a meeting a fortnight ago and had previously suggested to the Tees-side Development Board that it should get exactly the figures the hon. Member has mentioned. It did so, but it considered that the figures were so hush-hush that the horn. Member and I could not be told them. If we think about those figures we can see that it would be dangerous to issue them in any area, because people would lose confidence. There are always some jobs which must go because of the march of progress.
This is what I mentioned before when I said that some mines must close. An ironstone mine was closed in my constituency recently, but ironstone mines were being closed before I was born. There used to be 60 of them in my division and now there are only two. When the last one closed the local politicians had nothing else to talk about and they gloated over the unemployment. I do not gloat over it; I am distressed by it. I have done my best to help in this problem of unemployment, but I would rather do it behind the scenes than gloat and make political capital out of it as my opponents have done.

Mr. Fernyhough: Did the figures which the President of the Board of Trade gave about jobs in the pipeline include the figures which the hon. Member was not given?

Mr. Proudfoot: My right hon. Friend has never maintained that these figures were included.
Great play has been made about what the Socialist Party did about direction of industry when it was in power. I take another figure from last week's Scottish debate. In six years when hon. Members opposite were in power they spent £4·8 million on the redistribution of industry. In the last two and a half years this Government have spent £73 million. This is a pretty good showing when we compare the figures. I cannot see that the party opposite has anything to be pleased about.
The President of the Board of Trade and the Government must realise that there are real opportunities in the North-East and we can profit by them if they manage to get new and more industry to the area. I am sure that so far the Government have done a good job. I hope that they will carry on in the same fashion.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. William Stones: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proud-foot) and some of his hon. Friends have criticised hon. Members on this side of the House during the debate, saying that they were moaning and groaning about the situation in the North-East and that such groaning and moaning would tend to destroy confidence in the North-East. I wonder what course is open to hon. Members who represent constituencies in the area other than that of voicing grievances and bringing to the notice of the House the conditions which are causing them so much concern. That is the only way we can deal with the matter. As for destroying confidence in the North-East, our constituents' confidence in us would be destroyed if we did not make an effort to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the House the situation in the North-East. The hon. Member for Cleveland preferred to call it the "land of the three rivers," but whether one uses that name or calls it the North-East makes no difference to the situation.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has remained in his place. This has been a long debate and one could have excused the hon. Member had he left, like some of his hon. Friends have done. He referred to the mining industry, which his hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland called a senile industry. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South asked, however, a question similar to that asked some time ago by his noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), namely, whether we on this side did not consider that it would be much to the advantage of the miners if they were no longer miners.
As a miner for many years, first as a practical miner and then as a mines inspector, I have viewed with concern the conditions in our mines. Mining is an arduous and hazardous task. Whatever the improvements which have taken place in working conditions, mining still remains an unpleasant task. If we could be guaranteed that all our miners, if taken from the mines, would be given more congenial tasks with equal remuneration, if we could guarantee a constant and adequate supply of the fuel that we require, both in peace and in war, and, what is probably even more important, if we could guarantee supplies of the alternative fuel when it is no longer the alternative but is essential, and at an economic price, I would say that we should close the pits and bring the miners to the surface. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South, must, however, agree that those conditions have not yet been fulfilled.
The hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) referred to labour relations. It was suggested that there were restrictive practices in industry which should be swept away. I agree entirely that there are certain restrictive practices which, in the interests of the nation, should be swept aside. Far too many people, however, are of the opinion that good labour relations simply mean that the employer must have everything his own way. That is not good relations.
There may still be some hon. Members who would prefer to have a pool


of unemployment so as to exercise undue restraint upon the activities of so-called militant workers in the effort to better their conditions of labour and their 'living standards. In the not too distant past, many of us on this side of the House very often heard the statement that if a man was not satisfied with his job, there were scores of people in the pityard waiting to take it. That cannot be denied. Many of us have heard it, not only in the pits, but elsewhere. As a result of a vast reservoir of unemployed labour, an employer could, by the use of such statements, at least attempt to intimidate the men who were in work.
I agree that a tremendous improvement has taken place over recent years. However, it may well be that some people on the employing side would regard this as being a desirable situation. It is true enough, of course, that we have our idle Jacks, men who prefer to live at the expense of others, the work-shy, the irresponsible, with no scruples, but I would say again that not all of those people are on one side of industry— not by any means—and we are very fortunate in this country in that the vast majority of our workpeople are honest and hard working. Were it not so, we could not have been enjoying the high standard of life we now enjoy.
I, like many of my hon. Friends, have had experience of being unemployed and of taking home the totally inadequate dole we got weekly, and in spite of what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) said—I am pleased to see him entering the Chamber again—when he referred to the 1929 Government, it is a fact that there were millions of unemployed—3 million unemployed—following the demise of the 1929–31 Government. I was one of them. There were then literally millions of unemployed permanently, and many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, more who were working only one, two and three shifts a week. I had that experience, too.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North—I am sorry to see he is not in the Chamber—suggested that While this was true of the 'thirties it was not any longer true in the North. I am not suggesting for a moment that the

present situation in the Northern Region is anywhere near as crucial as the situation in the Northern Region was in the 'thirties, and I am not suggesting, either, that any Member on that side of the House would have us return to the conditions which we suffered in that period, but what I am saying is that when a man is unemployed—let alone 10,000 or 3 million—he suffers, and that we must be concerned when a man becomes unemployed. With unemployment for an extended period, such as we had in the 'thirties, or between 1929 and 1931, there is very grave danger of demoralisation, not only of the man himself, but of his family, too. Because of this, not because we are groaning and moaning, we express our concern for the northern region, and I think that such concern should be—and can be and is—readily understood by some at least of hon. Members on the other side of the House.
I may be forgiven if I refer now to my own constituency and the situation which we find there. We have two employment exchange areas in the Consett division, Consett and Stanley, both of which are now listed as development districts. In Consett we have 2.5 per cent. of unemployment, not a large percentage, but it is double what we had a year ago, and that is very significant. In Stanley we have 3.5 per cent. of unemployment. At least, these are the figures given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for June. The figures included all classes of unemployed. I am told that there is very little prospect for those areas in the immediate future. There is very considerable apprehension in my constituency about the future despite its being listed as a development district.
The main industries in the constituency are coal and steel. The Stanley area is one of the oldest mining areas in the country. Coal has been worked there for centuries. Now many of the pits are closing because of exhaustion and one or two because they are uneconomic. As miners, we appreciate why pits should be dosed when seams are exhausted. We know what pits are for; when there is no coal there, we do not need the pit. We can also appreciate the reason for closing pits in the other category. There are bound to be further closures in the very near future.
I do not blame the Dunham division of the National Coal Board for the situation. With the co-operation of the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers, it has done its very best to stave off the worst effects of the inevitable contraction of the industry. It is very largely, in my opinion, due to the Government's policy, or lack of policy, for fuel that the closures are taking place.
Despite the efforts of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, the manpower in the Durham division—these figures were given by the chairman of fine Durham division of the Board and ought to be accepted as authentic—has been reduced by nearly 18,000 in the past four years, and it is estimated that there will be a further reduction of 16,500 in the next five years. Whether the reduction is brought about by natural wastage, by men unfortunately being incapacitated by injury or respiratory disease or by non-recruitment, the fact remains that there will be that number of jobs fewer in the county. Whatever may be said about jobs in the pipeline, we shall still be losing that number of jobs, and that must not be forgotten.
Turning to steel, much the same can be said about the Consett Iron Company and the trade union there as I have said about the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine-workers. The company has a very large steelworks which is known throughout the world for the quality of the material that it produces. I am sure that it has done its best to cushion the effects of the recession in the steel industry, but hundreds of its employees are being rendered redundant. Despite the efforts of the company to maintain its labour at work as constantly as possible, it is having to resort to short-time working for many hundreds. The system is for men to work for a certain number of weeks and then have a week off.
I am told that prospects for the company are very dim. I have here excerpts from the report of Viscount Ridley, the chairman. The hon. Member for Cleveland talked about obsolete plant in his constituency. Last year, Lord Ridley's company spent £14 million on the first

of three new projects by installing one of the finest rolling mills in the country.

Mr. Proudfoot: It is only one small small item of plant which is out of date in my constituency. Most of my steel works there are bang up to date.

Mr. Stones: The owners of that out-of-date equipment should have brought it up to date.
Viscount Ridley says in his report Chat the new rolling mill is working at 50 per cent. capacity, but it is only economic if it is working at least at 70 per cent. capacity. He adds that output and profits are falling and the company is actually working at a loss. He can see no prospect of improvement in the near future.
It has been suggested that there are vacancies for redundant miners in other coal fields. But how can we expect men of 50 and over to migrate with enthusiasm to other areas? Is it fair even to the younger men, with all their ties to their own home districts, to compel them to move like this?
There are other aspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) referred to falling rateable values. Facilities and social amenities have been built up over the years in many districts now being left derelict by migration. Migration is taking place, and we can understand men, despairing of the future in this area, who are leaving. But we are not overjoyed at the prospect of losing them. We do not wish to be an ageing population.
I, too, want to refer to the problem of the school leavers. I am told that one in 15 of the boys and girls in my area who left school at Easter have still to find jobs. They will be joined by nearly 800 others at the end of the summer term. I am told that there may be just a few vacancies for girls by then but that so far there is little prospect for the boys, though a limited number may find jobs in the mines. I think that we are entitled to ask the Government, in all sincerity, what they intend to do about this situation.
It is not, I admit, a simple task and I recognise the fact that we cannot expect a magic wand to be waved to bring about remedial action, but we must ask


the Government to apply themselves to the task, not only in order to avoid the serious consequences of the present unemployment, but also to deal with the effects of the inevitable contraction of the mining industry in this area. I say "inevitable" because it is bound to take place. One or two of the least economic pits we already know are to close and, because of the topsy-turvy capitalist economics of this country, we experience from time to time crises and recurring depression.
Heavy industry such as we have in the North-East suffers first from any recession, and it is, equally, the last to recover. We in the North-East "get it in the neck" all the time. What is the solution? Our rejoinder to that question is that it is up to the Government. But a partial solution to our problem would be for the Government to adopt an expansionist policy in our economy. In the last few years everybody knows that there has been no expansionist policy and, consequently, heavy industry, shipbuilding, ship repairing, and coal mining, have not worked to full capacity.
Only this morning I read of a survey by British manufacturers telling us that in the whole of the country about 35 per cent. of the industries submitting reports showed an upward trend, while about 45 per cent. were stated to be stagnant, and about 20 per cent. were in decline, and no improvement was seen to be likely in the immediate future.
In areas where mining has ceased or is about to cease we must have alternative industries. Mention has been made of the North-East Trading Estates; and in this connection I am glad to see that the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) is in her place again. I do not wish to enter into an argument with her as to who was responsible for this development. The fact is that the trading estate is there and we are very glad to have it. I am particularly pleased because in the Greencroft area there is a ball-bearing factory which employs more than 2,000 people. What we should have done without the trading estate and, particularly,, without the ballbearing firm, I can only leave hon. Members to guess.
We must have alternative industries in the region. I am told that nearly all of

Durham County is listed as a development district, but there does not seem to be any rush of industrialists to take ad-vantage of the many opportunities which are provided as a result of the area being so listed. I am not sure whether being listed as a development district is a very great inducement to industrialists. It is a purely marginal matter and I wonder if there is the fullest co-operation between the various departments responsible for the siting of industry and the making of grants available in the North-East to potential industrialists.
In the North-East we have sites, water and power and some of the finest labour power available. I have talked to industrialists in my division, and they have all expressed the view that they are quite satisfied with the calibre of their employees, many of them ex-miners. They are adaptable, hard-working men and women.
Why do industrialists concentrate on other regions with as low as 1·2 per cent. unemployed, such as London and the South-East? There are many factors to be taken into consideration when choosing a site, and we know that these people go shopping for sites. We have everything available for them. It has been seriously suggested to me that one of the factors responsible for industrialists failing to set up industries in the North is that their wives object to going North. It is said that the North is not a nice place to live. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that in fact it is a very fine place to live. We have the industrial scars of the pits and slag heaps, but most industrialists, and their wives, have cars, and within a few minutes they can leave the industrial scars behind and be in countryside as pleasont as one would wish to see. We have everything necessary. I leave the Government with this thought: as we have all that is necessary, it is up to them to provide the rest as an inducement to potential industrialists.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate even at this hour and to add my voice to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the problems which we face in the North-East. My hon. Friend the Member for


Consett (Mr. Stones) said that we had everything which was needed for industrialists to be induced to go to the North-East. I will take this up with him; already there is a threat to close the branch railway lines in vital parts of the North-East. Only recently we were told that the Central Electricity Generating Board had decided to postpone indefinitely the project which we had expected in the County of Durham—a new power station. The Minister of Power has promised to have a further meeting with us about the estimates of demand for electrical energy in the North-East in the future.
But we must bear in mind that if projects for power stations are to be turned down and if branch lines are to be closed, the lines of communication will be disrupted and the future demand for electricity will not be met. In that event, how can we plan industrial development for the North-East as it should be planned? These facilities must be provided before deciding what industries should be encouraged to come to our part of the country.
I want to refer to the issue which has been raised time and again this evening, the success or otherwise of the Local Employment Act. When the Bill was introduced into the House by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then the President of the Board of Trade, it was with great enthusiasm and optimism that he talked about how it would benefit the areas about which we are talking tonight. He led us to believe that this measure would supersede all previous Government measures to deal with the location of industry, and that the problem of areas of high unemployment would be expeditiously and efficiently dealt with. Further, it was said that the measure would not only deal with existing unemployment, but would anticipate further unemployment and deal with it before much harm was done. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the Act has done very little to solve the problems of the North-East. Very few firms have been attracted into the area to set up new factories.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Consett that the North-East, because of the highly specialised nature of its industrial structure, is extremely sensitive to the economic situation in

the rest of the country. It is true that we have had periods of economic expansion when the economy as a whole has been expanding, but these periods of expansion have not lasted very long. Indeed, as soon as our industries have got into their stride the Government have introduced restrictionist policies which have out back production, and as a result industries in the North-East have been the first to suffer because of Government action.
The Government's attempts to solve the problem of the distribution of industry have been futile. I know that it is not easy to solve this problem in the North-East. I know ail about the difficulties. I know of the resistance by industrialists to the blandishments of the Government to go to our area, and we all know of the bogies which have been raised by industrialists who have been asked to go there by the Board of Trade. They have raised the bogy of extra transport costs, the prestige value of siting an industry in the right area, and so on. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Consett pointed out, the wives of industrialists and managers are reluctant to move from the South to the North-East.
We have heard about these difficulties on many occasions, and it is a sad reflection on the present system— indeed a condemnation of it—that economic stability and the future prospects of thousands of men depend on the whims and fancies of the wives of managers and industrialists. That is the situation with which we are faced, and of course under the Local Employment Act industrialists and managers are able to raise these bogies with the Board of Trade when the Board tries to induce them to establish industry in an area of high unemployment, like the North-East.
This fact lies at the heart of the problem. We must accept that the Government's main instrument in carrying out their policy of industrial location is inducing private industry to go to areas such as the North-East. I believe that to continue this policy, without any alternative, means that in the long term the situation will only become more serious and in the process will seriously undermine the country's economic strength. It is therefore hopeless for the Government to rely entirely, as they


do under the Local Employment Act, on private industry to deal with problems of persistent high unemployment and the siting of industries in places like the North-East. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that the Government should produce an entirely new policy to deal with what has become the No. 1 priority in that part of the country.
If the Government are sincere in their desire to deal with the contraction of the long-standing basic industries of the North-East they must be prepared to allow public enterprise to play a more important part in solving the problem of unemployment. They should be prepared to assist and encourage the nationalised industries to widen their activities in these areas. Local authorities, with their direct labour schemes, should also play their part in clearing out pockets of unemployment. Bodies like the North-East Development Council—and this has been suggested by Mr. George Chetwynd, the chairman of that Council—should be given the opportunity and financial assistance from the Government to enable them to play a more positive part in buying sites and building new factories at strategic points in the North-East. These are only some of the suggestions to which I hope the Government will pay proper regard.
As usual, we hon. Members on this side of the House who represent North-East constituencies have been condemned by hon. Members opposite as exaggerating pessimists in dealing with these problems. This is far from being true. We are super-optimists, as we must be when a Tory Government are dealing with them. No one realises as well as we do the potentialities of the North-East and the quality of the labour force there. Men who have grown up in the rough tradition of coal mining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering, with all their dangers and anxieties, are men of outstanding qualities. They are the country's greatest assets, and not one of them should be allowed by the Government to rot on the dole. Furthermore, experience has shown time and time again that not only are these men used to hard work

but they are highly adaptable to new skills and techniques. The tragedy of it is that tens of thousands of them are waiting to prove this very point.
The Government must take realistic and positive action to overcome the serious position that is developing in our part of the country. I hope that they will pay proper regard to some of the methods that have been suggested from this side of the House. We cannot ignore the fact that tens of thousands of our people are unable to forecast when they will find another job. Out of every 1,000 of the insured population, 35 are unemployed at the moment. As has been said time and time again from these benches, we have thousands of youngsters looking for jobs and many of them do not know what the future holds for them. This problem of youth employment is causing the greatest worry imaginable to the parents, the local education committees and youth employment organisations because none of them can see any solution to the problem.
I ask the Government to remember that the north-east of England has contributed tremendously over the years in experience, skill, culture and leadership, not only to this country but to many parts of the world. Therefore, the Government have a great responsibility and obligation to this part of the country, and they should give serious consideration to the suggestions which have been made so that our people may look forward to the future with security and dignity.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. James Boyden: It is a sign of the bankruptcy of the party opposite that they claim credit for ideas that they did not originate and for schemes that they did not develop. I refer to the Distribution of Industry Act. Pushed by forces particularly in the North-East just before the outbreak of the war, they set up the Uthwatt and Barlow Commissions. On the Reports of those Commissions the Distribution of Industry Act was based. Anybody who knows the inside history of the Cabinet struggles in which my predecessor, the late Hugh Dalton, took part will know that it was only with reluctance that the right hon. Member for


Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) accepted the ideas of the Uthwatt and Barlow Reports which Hugh Dalton subsequently carried out.
It was technically correct, as the President of the Board of Trade said the other day, that the Caretaker Government enacted the legislation, but behind the scenes there was the greatest pressure from the soldiers, the industrial population and the leaders of the Labour Party to get the scheme carried through. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) fell into the same trap as the President of the Board of Trade fell into the other day when he claimed credit for this scheme.

Mr. Speir: It originated in Measures adopted by the Stanley Baldwin Government in about 1936.

Mr. Boyden: If the hon. Member claims credit for what the Baldwin Government did for industrial development, he had better look up the history books. Even the simple hisrtory books record the events in a different way. This sort of ambivalence, as it is called in university circles, or as it is called in my constituency "double-talk", has been fairly symptomatic of the speeches from the other side of the House in that they are talking in one voice to the Front Bench and in another voice to the newspapers in their constituencies.
My first impression of the vigour with which the President of the Board of Trade was conducting the administration of the Local Employment Act was gained in a deputation, which I attended in my first few weeks in this House, on the problem of industrial development in County Durham. I remember saying to one of my colleagues—I believe it was George Chetwynd—"Well, the North-East is bottom of the list." That is how it proved to be. The North-East is bottom of the list.
The hon. Member for Hexham unconsciously said that now that South Wales and Merseyside have been dealt with satisfactorily, he thought it was the turn of the North-East. This is one of the things that we complain about. At least the North-East ought to be considered as an equivalent of Merseyside, South Wales and Scotland. We do not claim priority, but for people automatically to

assume that the North-East is at the bottom of the list is a downright scandal. That is, in fact, what the figures of the money spent on development show, and what the current unemployment figures show as well.
The trouble with hon. Members opposite, and with the Government, is that they consider the Government's role in the development of industry to be a minor one. When the President of the Board of Trade wound up the Scottish debate on industry and employment just the other day his league table of unemployment was something one could hardly have expected from any Government. He quoted Austria as having a higher unemployment rate, and Jugoslavia as having a higher unemployment rate. He took credit in the fact that our rate was lower than theirs. It was as though Tottenham Hotspurs, having won the Cup and the League two years running, were to congratulate themselves two years later on being top of the Third Division. For a country like ours to have a responsible Minister, who survived the axe, talking like that shows that he does not feel about unemployment as do we on this side.
In the economic debate, he spoke of the 31 I.D.C.s that had had his personal attention. He said that they were issued because it was not possible for brickworks to go anywhere else, and for the other factories to go elsewhere, but it never seemed to dawn on him that if industry were expanding there would be a great amount of industry that could go elsewhere, and far more applications for I.D.C.s than the 31 miserable ones to which he gave his personal attention. The basic trouble is that the economy is barely expanding, and if the President of the Board of Trade is touchy about league tables, surely he should respond to them, where we do badly, with a sense of challenge—but not a bit of it; he invents a phoney league table to show how well we are doing.
It is that attitude of mind that is frequently brought to the House when we on this side ask questions. We are told that a place is in a development district. I think that it was the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) who said very emphatically that being in a development district did not mean very much, but that is the sort of technical


answer that is given time and time again to hon. Members on this side who press the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade about what is to happen.
My second charge against the Government is that their administration of the development districts is full of administrative blunders. An example is the pit closures. The right hon. Gentleman who was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and has since been promoted said in front of a number of us in Newcastle that he thought that there was possibly a defect in the notification time that the Coal Board gave to the Board of Trade for dealing with the closures and the setting up of new factories. When pressed by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay) he could add nothing further. At Newcastle, a fortnight earlier, he had said that there was the defect of not enough notice being given; in this House, he said that about 12 months was about the maximum notice he could expect. Can anybody believe that in 12 months factories can be built in Bishop Auckland to cope with the closure that is to take place at Eldon Drift Colliery in October?
Again, if the administration is going so well, how does it happen that on 4th July the Railway Workshop Towns Committee should minute the following —and that Committee is not made up of Socialist town councillors. Minute (b) reads:
In particular the Government is called upon to promote the preparation of advance plans to ensure alternative employment for men to be declared redundant, and that the Government should require the British Transport Commission to help by making land and/or premises more quickly available for other industries.
(c) The British Transport Commission should be required to give very much longer notice of redundancies; naming the towns concerned and should co-operate with the local authorities and Government Departments as to the phasing of the redundancies so as to match up as far as possible with the provision of alternative employment.
Hon. Members opposite may well tell me that Shildon is a development district and that the unemployment rate is only 1·2 per cent. I can tell them that the Shildon Council has a factory site of 12 acres to which it has been trying to attract industry. It has been trying to

do the job of the Government for nearly two years and has got hardly anybody interested in the factory. There has been no industrial development in expectation of the rundown of the workshop since the passing of the Local Employment Act. Putting Shildon in the list has so far meant nothing.
I will give an example of a different kind of administrative incompetence. There is a firm in my constituency which has two branches one in a small place called Cockfield, up in the fells—we call them fells in Durham—and another in Bishop Auckland. The management of the factory would like to concentrate the two works into one for the sake of efficiency. The Board of Trade according to the law is quite powerless to use its money and influence to decide the concentration in the place which would do the most social good. The Board of Trade does not care about the respective merits of Bishop Auckland and Cock-field.
I represent both places. I shall not be particularly popular for saying that it is highly desirable that the factory should concentrate in Cockfield. This will not be popular in Bishop Auckland. However, if the factory is concentrated and developed in Bishop Auckland three-quarters of the people now employed in Cockfield—that is, three-quarters of the total labour force—will have to travel to Bishop Auckland and the last source of work in Cockfield disappears.
The Act is useless if it cannot bring influence to bear to have the factory concentrated in Cockfield, where the surrounding area is quite denuded of employment. The employment that is in Cockfield should be maintained. The factory will probably concentrate in Bishop Auckland. I hope that it will not, but it looks as if it will. In that case, the Cockfield people will have to travel seven miles and the people living at Copley, Butterknowle and other places will have to travel still further. This will be yet another blow to the industrial development of West Durham.
As I go round talking to industrialists in the area I find this sort of thing. A firm which is making a particularly interesting and useful kind of chassis for sale overseas just cannot make any progress in getting credits—bank credits or


Board of Trade credits. Criticism has been levelled today at the rigidity with which B.O.T.A.C. works. It is a fatal mistake to separate B.O.T.A.C. from the Board of Trade The Treasury Bench takes much credit for the fact that B.O.T.A.C. is an advisory body which advises them, but they lose much administrative strength by not being able to influence B.O.T.A.C.'s decisions in a way favourable to areas like mine.
I could make out a staggering case showing the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. The hon. Member for Cleveland would no doubt like a job on the Front Bench. I was thinking that he might very well do as the television adviser to the new Chancellor, or possibly he could do another job of that description. I would mot mind him being a Secretary of State or a Minister of State for the development of special areas, such as the North-East. It certainly needs some administrative action of this sort to co-ordinate all the things which are necessary to put the North-East really on its feet.
Pitheads are being afforested by the county council. How much more sensible would it be if the Forestry Commission undertook this work and relieved the county council. The Commission by spending a small amount of money could do it with much greater technical competence. It would probably get its trees cheaper. It would probably plan the work better. If it made a big drive, I am sure that this would be a worth while contribution.
In my constituency 420 men in the construction industry are out of work, more building industry workers than miners unemployed. There are 360 miners out of work and 420 in the building industry, yet in the North generally and in my constituency in particular there must be more slum houses which need reconstruction and greater pressure for that kind of thing than in many other areas of the country. I recommend to hon. Members a Fabian pamphlet by a former colleague Member, Barry Culling-worth, "New Towns for Old", which says that in London and the south of England there were 2.8 per cent. of unfit houses—this was in 1955, some time ago, but it is difficult to bring the figures up to date—and in the Northern area the figure was 6.8 per cent. What would

be better than to use unemployed building workers to get more accelerated slum clearance?
When I asked the former Minister of Housing and Local Government what he proposed to do about Bishop Auckland, which was among the 50 worst places from a slum clearance point of view, his answer was that when the other places had solved their problem the surveyors, technicians and other people who would he required to service those 50 places would no doubt move in and do the job. I could give many examples of the same kind of thing. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), referring to the letter in the Guardian, a drive to improve amenities and to improve housing, a drive to bring hospitals up to standards in some other parts of the country, could all be accomplished today with the building labour which is available if only there were co-ordination and drive with that co-ordination.
As my hon. Friends have been advocating a Grand Committee for the North-East, I go a step further and say that if the Grand Committee had a sufficiency of responsible Ministers and sufficiently high-powered civil servants to see that the schemes were produced those schemes could be translated into plans.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: One common thread has drawn together hon. Members who have participated in this debate. That thread has been the praise rightly lavished on the people who live and work in the north-east of England.
There has been a suggestion that the area ought to be called the "Three Rivers Area", but I think there is something about the term "North-East" that has a great deal of pride in the past and a good deal to look forward to in the future. As a Northumbrian by adoption, I add my praise to what has been said in this connection. Possibly one of the greatest tributes paid to the area was the decision recently taken, although it was not carried out, to build the new Cunarder on Tyneside instead of in its traditional home in Scotland. I can think of no greater tribute to the shipbuilding skills of the North-East than that decision. The pity is that the policies of the Government did not allow it to come to fruition.
Tribute ought to be paid to the Minister of Labour for the way in which he has sat on the Front Bench throughout this debate. I only wish that he had been flanked during that time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, although what I have to say later may seem a little strange. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite—especially one who has no particular interest in the North-East, although I am glad that he has remained here for such a long time—to point to our Front Bench. Of course, our Front Bench is not yet responsible for solving this problem.
I wish to deal with one point before dealing with some of the matters affecting my constituency. One or two hon. Members opposite have delved back into the historical past. They have endeavoured to prove in the course of those delvings that the theories of industrial development under the Local Employment Act and the other Measures flowing from it were the brainchild of past Conservative statesmen.

Dame Irene Ward: So they were.

Mr. Milne: Of all people to be given the credit for this, the most incongruous of the lot was the late Stanley Baldwin.

Dame Irene Ward: That is true. That is history.

Mr. Milne: We are now asked to deal with history. If it is an assessment of the manner in which Stanley Baldwin dealt with the industrial and the economic problems of Britain, I recommend the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) to go no further than to read the writings of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). When it comes to dealing with Baldwin and with history, despite my reservations on many other matters, I would far sooner listen to the right hon. Member for Wood-ford than the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth.

Dame Irene Ward: I am jolly glad to hear it.

Mr. Milne: The choice is limited when I have mentioned only the two persons concerned.
Two figures serve as an indictment of the Government's policy. The very fact that this debate has to take place at the end of the Session in 1962 is in itself an indictment of the Government, who have been in power since 1951. It is no use hon. Members opposite getting up and reciting remedies for problems that exist when their Government have had 11 years in power to solve them.
If we look at the figures in relation to that indictment, we can see the pattern emerging. Between 1955 and 1959, something like 340,000 new jobs were created in Britain and only 20,000 of them went to the North-West, the North-East and Scotland. An overwhelming preponderance of jobs came to the Midlands and to the South of England. From 1951, as many hon. Members have pointed out, the drift from the North-East was about 80,000 to 86,000 people.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), who is no longer in his place—I do not blame him for that in a debate of this length—mentioned the direction of labour. He raised his hands in holy horror at the thought of it. Every time that a factory is built, however, we direct labour. Every time that an industrialist decides to set down a plant, there is some degree of direction of labour. [Interruption.]
It is strange that the interruptions that one gets in the course of a debate in this House are always in inverse ratio to the amount of time that the interrupter spends in the House on other occasions. We are entitled at this stage at least to be able to develop points without stupid interruptions of the type that we are hearing. If the hon. Member wants me to give way, I am perfectly wiling to do so, but I am not willing, nor should I be, to be interrupted in this fashion.
On the question of direction of labour, the steering of industries to the areas of high unemployment must be the priority of any Government. As I have said on more than one occasion in the past, the North-East needs only a major break through in one of our major industries and the problem of the area could possibly solve itself—the motor car industry, or plastics or chemicals or steel; but something is needed in addition to those industries we have already in the North-East. That is


what makes the tributes to our labour force so important at this stage and in this context.
Hon. Members opposite have paid a great deal of tribute to jobs in the pipeline, and figures were drawn from the debate on Scottish industry last week to demonstrate that the pipeline was an effective method of channelling jobs into the various areas of high unemployment. I turn to my own constituency for a moment. A Question was put down to the President of the Board of Trade as recently as last week. Since December last year, two-thirds of my constituency has been scheduled as a development district. The President of the Board of Trade told us from November, 1960, up to the present moment fewer than 300 new jobs have been provided in an area which has suffered in the same period from considerable pit closures, and the President of the Board of Trade went on to say that he was unable to give any figure for the next 18 months of the number of jobs which would be moved into my constituency. If this is the type of forward planning which the Government are now indulging in, in place of the airy promises which have been given over the last two or three years, then the prospects for the future are duller even than they were. It is not a question of shouting, "Woe," nor is it a question of writing the area down: it is a question of attempting to face realistically the difficulties which confront us in the north-east of England.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and others who touched on this question of keeping people underground in order to extract coal: I agree that is not in keeping with the needs of the second half of the twentieth century, and that the extracting of coal by different methods and the use of coal in other forms are questions which occupy the attention of the National Coal Board at the moment, but it is not sufficient to say that this is what we want for the future of the coal industry. If we agree that this is so, if the Government agree that this is so—and hon. Members opposite have indicated that it is—then the question of producing alternative industries for the areas of pit decline is the

No 1 priority of the Government at the moment.
It has bean said—I hope there is only some truth in it—that until the National Coal Board has the required intake of miners in the receiving areas, the prospect of industries being sited in the areas where pits are being closed is fairly remote. I hope that the Minister of Labour will pay particular attention to this aspect of the problem because the figures we received from the President of the Board of Trade did not indicate this trend. It may be that Government help will be needed in the areas of pit closure during the transitional period between the closing of the pits and the arrival of new industries.
Tribute ought to be paid in this debate to the far-sighted social policy of Jim Bowman when he was at the National Coal Board, when stocks of coal were being piled in and around the pit areas. That policy was beneficial not only to those working in the pits but to the Board and ultimately to the country. I am not saying that that is a policy which could go on indefinitely, but it is one for the transitional period between the closing of pits and the provision of alternative industry.
What is true of the mining industry is equally true of the other great basic industries of the North-East. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) raised the question of the nationalised industries and the contracts and orders that they were able to give to firms in different parts of the country. Apart from contracts being diverted to those areas, there is no reason why the firms which have benefited from those contracts should not, when they are considering expansion, be persuaded to move into the areas to which the products of their orders are being transferred. All this could have an effect on the present unemployment figures.
Not a great deal that is new can be said in a debate of this description at this hour. I want to close as I started, by paying tribute to the people of the area. This is not something which can be overdone; it ought to be stressed again and again. We have been told that what is needed for the North-East is self-help. I pay tribute to what the Northumberland County Council has done to attract new industries to the area, to the


advertising methods that it has used in showing the amenities of the county, the industrial sites and the potential labour force available; and to the local authorities in my constituency and other constituencies which have struggled in season and out of season to attract new industries to their areas and have done a first-rate job in providing sites which are second to none in Britain.
The one thing lacking in all this effort has been the Government's ability to do the job. We are suffering not only from neglect of the North-East but from neglect of the nation's economy as a whole. If the Government allow the nation's economy to run down, then the North-East and similar areas are the greatest sufferers. The real trouble with the Government Front Bench—

Dame Irene Ward: Which one.

Mr. Milne: I know that hon. Members opposite are tired at this stage and cannot get on their feet, but that is no reason to interrupt hon. Members in this fashion.

Dame Irene Ward: I only asked a question.

Mr. Milne: The hon. Lady has been long enough in this House to know that she should get on her feet when asking questions. The real trouble with the Government Front Bench is that they are completely unfitted to lead a great industrial nation in the second half of the twentieth century. They have been losing their grip and impetus since 1955. We watched the great post-war developments; now there is a state of decline. We have made our appeals to the Government, but in the last analysis the only solution to the problems of the North-East, as it is of the problems of the country as a whole, is a change of Government as quickly as possible.

2.2 a.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: Whether or not hon. Members opposite dislike hearing tales of misery and woe, I must remind them of the motive behind this debate, for a clear conception of the black clouds looming over the people of these mining districts, who are affected by the adverse changes taking place, is necessary. These changes prove how severe is the test of events

that will make it very difficult for people to obtain alternative employment, and what we seek is of enormous importance to human welfare.
I believe, for what is morally right, that the cast of thought which emerges from such changes and the troubles that arise in their wake enables one to judge for oneself in witnessing the prospects for economic life in these areas coming to a standstill as the result of pit closures. The picture is all the more vivid when it is realised that the problem is more far-reaching in extent than any other problem we are encountering. It can only lead to further unemployment and depressed standards.
There is redundancy in practically every part of the mining industry in my constituency. We cannot blindly accept such retrograde conditions. We are forced to face the problem of the provision of alternative employment and we in turn must force the Government to do so. The discouraging signs of the present time compel us to devote the most careful and serious attention to this. There is much to be said about redundancy, but to find the cause of such a matter of fact thing is allied, I suggest, to the positive outcome of Tory Government policy; it is not a superfluous undertaking. I ardently believe that such an indubitable undertaking is right to place exact stipulation as a merciless and ruthless attack by the Government.
Judging developments that are taking place, it is not in vain to be consistent with the facts in recognising that the Coal Board is charged with the responsibility to implement policy; but in the circle of activity, the test to be applied cannot be separated. For what is regarded to be in the form of strictest obedience to the Government, none has been nearer to success than the pit closures. They are being carried out with so much acumen as to result in the disintegration of the mining industry in certain areas.
Apart from the galaxy of philosophy that we are accustomed to hear from this Government, there are probably few people who would disagree that muscles and lives are the essential materials needed to produce coal—with all the risks involved—but to add my own varied experience I can say that no


miner can ever hope to gain an inestimable reward from the skill, sweat, and toil of working in the mines. The point which should claim attention, and which can be summed up as the necessity to keep in mind, is that the loss of even such a livelihood is a much more serious affair.
For many, it will be the last time that they will ever see inside a coal mine for, being victims of the circumstances, they have no hope of ever returning to the industry in which, hitherto, they have earned their living. In the meantime, the dismantling and breaking up of the surface plants is being carried out, with the withdrawal of haulage equipment and the withdrawing of underground roadway supports, resulting in the cutting off of ventilation. This creates great earth movements in falls of roof, while the flooding of mines is conclusive proof that they will never again go into production.
This is unlike anything ever before witnessed in the industry and this method of extinction is maintained by the element of fear and uncertainty. An unwarranted assumption would be an error but I believe that experience and stern facts oblige us to view the prospects for the future with serious concern. In the circumstances, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to refer to the great human problems involving the happiness and the livelihood of our people. I would be prepared to say with all solemnity that so many different sides of human affairs attract attention that the problems presented are among the gravest in the social and economic life of people that I know of.
This is not gloomy imagery. Redundancy is not without reaction. The more we think over it, the more we must realise how mental anguish has got hold of the public mind. Every passing day affords us to confine such thoughts, as to know in advance where we stand in matters of closures is most disconcerting. Such thoughts are warranted by facts, for amid the welter of economic change to guess precisely what form the transformation will take is not beyond the scope of prophecy. It is not difficult to fathom the mood which dominates the domestic position.
At a time of unprecedented distraction it is vitally important to gain a general idea of the inadequate pool of jobs and built into this, the more staggering it is to think that we are moving into a downward phase of permanent decline by gravitation to a greater crop of pit closures. It is not a situation which is being jerked by blind faith. Those who are already experiencing the growing frustration cannot rest satisfied while their existence is being invaded by economic farces and other factors. The sources of the present difficulties are thwarted by economic causes which go deeper as a consequence of these economic movements, and the requirements actively to deal with the circumstances which confront us can be improved only by the introduction of new industries.
To give a fuller and franker recognition of redundancy in my constituency, I do so for the reason that it has followed in continuous succession for some time now. I was never so firmly persuaded that the problem of trying to soften the blow could be solved by merely patching up. The transferring of men, which has operated by degrees, assumes greater gravity when viewed in the clear light of trying to keep men in employment. The fact is that serious problems were involved in the effort to facilitate the objective of employing as many men as could be found places in the industry.
These heavy responsibilities are accompanied by the closing of collieries and various transfers of men here and there to relieve the pressure. Although I do not want to be more generous in the use of adjectives, I must say that the efforts of the Divisional Coal Board in this respect could be called praiseworthy, but even although it has been able to initiate these measures, it has to be frankly admitted that we have reached the stage when further transfers in the constituency will have to be completely cancelled out.
In one form or another I think that what should be placed on record is the ample evidence of men who for some time past have been transferred, and who still continue to be transferred, out of the area to such places as the Midlands and South Wales. While this represents toleration, I must reserve my


own apprehension about security for such areas, particularly in regard to the success of a final phase in the competitive struggle with other sources of power and energy. However, taking transfers into account, many have felt the urge to migrate and have decided to try their luck because prospects seem a little brighter. It may well 'be that these transfers will thin the ranks of the younger people, but it will also mean removing their spending power from the area. Such a loss is felt most keenly in various businesses and one can well imagine how the order of such things contributes to the worry of business people.
Whatever might be the desire of individuals, there is another important facet which brings us to the core of our difficulties. Nothing can obscure the fact that many excellent workmen, while possessing qualities of heart, but partly because of the fear of the break-up of the family and broken ambitions, prefer to stay behind. But continued in many forms, the one chief fact that weighs its meaning is that the cream of the population is by no means skimmed off. Let it not be assumed that the remaining population consists of the least efficient and the least active members of the community.
Perhaps nothing shows more clearly than those thousands that are tied down. Without fault of their own they are victims to the contingencies of closures but a little reflection suffices to make it dear that in relation to the non-mining community the broken end of change has its unfavourable effect. Without any figurative exaggeration, the non-mining community makes up the majority. Its inclusion shows the true density, because its roots are a direct product of the attraction to the mining areas that took place in years gone by. Therefore it is easy to understand the part that altruistic feelings play, and allowances must be made in the conduct of social and recreational activities, and religious associations.
Perhaps going further I might say that the trend of decline in which the scales are so heavily loaded gives these people legitimate grounds for anxiety, inevitably evolving on the basis of inadequate opportunity of acquiring alternative work in the area. The sensitiveness of

the individual mind always turns on the need for industrial development. This is a task which specially calls for attention and thoughtfulness. There is nothing to compare with these rapid changes. It is not much use groping blindly for escape. What is needed is a broad and humane outlook which should at least attract interest in the mental picture when the common routine of work is withdrawn.
Nevertheless, in the conduct of public affairs, it is vital to avoid sinking into difficulties and becoming more discouraged. Over and above everything else, just as events have contributed to effects under a number of phases, in the last resort I ask what of the future? We cannot escape our obligations. The Government cannot abdicate their responsibilities. There must be opportunities for absorption in new employment which will enable 'people to take their rightful places in useful production. I might be told that I am sadly misjudging the situation, but if any Member on the Treasury Bench thinks that this is capricious thinking on my part I would gladly welcome any steps which the Government may wish to take to inquire into these conditions.
Whatever may be necessary to improve the outlook, nothing could be nearer to our thinking than all the wants and desires that should be projected to achieve a steady rate of long-term economic growth. In any standard of duty, if the setting up of the National Economic Development Council, as we have been told over and over again, represents the attempt to achieve a 4 per cent. growth rate, then we must be emphatic that changes so fundamental must proceed from it as a sequence in which every age and every generation must adapt itself to changing circumstances.
We should really look upon it as a goal to which we should push on with all possible speed, consistent with the. fact that all intelligent and conscientious workers try to express themselves in creative effort. Under whatever form expressed, it is sometimes nauseating to hear remarks about having to work harder, longer and efficiently as a remedy. But it is not asking too much to expect a new drive when the point has been reached An the task to make


work for those who want. There can be no doubt about the answer from this side of the House. We believe it must be fitted into a proper utilisation of the available productive resources and geared to a systematic planning of the entire economy.
Things being as they are in the conditions of existence, the only bright note I can conclude on is to express appreciation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for being kind enough to draw my attention in a letter to the fact that my constituency has been added to the list of development districts under the 1960 Act. I assure him that I sincerely appreciate the effort and the decision that has been made, but now that it has been made, I also trust that every effort will be made to attract industry into an area that so badly needs it.

2.23 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish to prolong the debate but, having listened for a long time to hon. Members opposite on employment in the North-East, with which area I have as much sympathy as with any other, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour one question. Before doing so, I must say that I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite do any great service to the problem of their own area by being quite so depressing about it. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) deplored the fact that there were difficulties of one sort or another, but he spoke with such an air of doom that I cannot imagine anybody trying to bring industry and life into the area about which he was speaking. I appeal to horn. Members opposite to do something—

Mr. Woof: It probably would sound strange to the hon. Member. The difference is in his constituency and mine. I assure him that if he spent a Saturday night in my constituency he would soon get to know the truth of what I tried to convey in my speech.

Mr. Cooke: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Although I am in the happy position of representing a part of the south of England which does mot have quite the same problems as the North-East, there are just as many

depressing sights to be seen on a Saturday night in the great industrial city which I represent.

Mr. Boyden: I served on Durham County Council with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) and I know how hard he worked all that time in trying to develop the industrial area which he represents. It does not do much good to the argument to criticise my hon. Friend for this activities.

Mr. Cooke: I was not criticising his activities at all. I was expressing the hope that hon. Members would co-operate with me in the spirit that I was trying to introduce into the debate. I was saying that I appreciate the problems of other parts of the country as well as my own, but that I thought that a spirit of optimism might be more helpful than some of the gloomy remarks of the hon. Member. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government must be well aware of the difficulties; they have heard of them from both sides of the House.
One reason that our part of the country has not had quite so big an unemployment problem as the North-East—and my reason for rising in this debate is that we have had a small increase in unemployment —is that we have a slightly more diversified industry. The City of Bristol does not depend upon any one industry in particular. If one industry were suddenly to become inoperative there would be others to carry on. I know that Her Majesty's Government are doing a lot to help and I hope they will continue to do all they can to make some of these areas which have difficulties more diverse in their industry. In my own city the Government have done a great deal to encourage those people who are engaged in the export trade, and that is good for the city and for the country as a whole.
The question I want to ask my right hon. Friend is this, and I think it has some substance. I hear that a proposal has been made by the Ministry of Education that all school leavers should leave school at the end of the summer term. This seems to me to be a dangerous idea because it means that the labour market will be flooded with people wanting jobs all at one time. As a schoolmaster in past years, there seems to me something to be said for ensuring that


pupils do not all leave at the same time, so that they can then gradually be fitted into employment, whereas if the labour market were flooded all at once they would not all necessarily find jobs.
I am well aware of the problems of the north-east of England, but that area is not unique. We have heard a good deal about Northern Ireland, for which many of us have a great affection. They have their problems too. Even we in the south of England have our difficulties. I hope that the Government will try to preserve a correct balance by considering these factors which I have mentioned.

2.28 a.m.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: This is the first occasion that I have been called upon to make a speech to an audience larger than one at 2.30 a.m. and for this reason I intend to be brief.
During the course of this long debate I think that the problems of the North-East, which are very well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House, have been thoroughly discussed. I want to limit my brief remarks to one aspect of the problem in the southern part of the area, on Tees-side, and particularly in my own constituency of Stockton.
Anybody who has not lived in a mining area or has been closely associated with one can have nothing but respect for the way in which such areas have faced the problem of the declining coal industry. I am not surprised that they have had problems. What surprises me is that those problems have been so often overcome and that so much understanding and patience have been shown by those who have had to face them.
The problem of the declining coal industry is not one which Tees-side faces, nor is my own constituency of Stockton directly affected by the steel industry working so much below capacity. For this reason the present unemployment figures are extremely distressing. At 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon I spoke to my own local exchange and I was told that the total register of men and women was 1,828. This is 255 more than the June figure and well over twice the figure in July, 1961.
The roost terrible figure here is that for the men, which is the highest for any

month in the last six years, and the highest June figure since before the war. When I received this figure I asked for it to be checked, because I could not believe that unemployment was now running at such a level—tout it is. It is a very distressing prospect, indeed, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of the causes.
As I say, we are not affected by the decline in coal, or directly affected by the steed industry's problems; ours is a form of creeping unemployment which is most dangerous because it is the most difficult to locate. If one cannot locate it, one cannot easily find the right solution. We have had no large-scale payoff, no major close-down. It is simply a question of people coming out of jobs and finding no other jobs to go to. It is an exceedingly serious problem, and one that all would agree is the result of the present economic stagnation.
When thinking of the problem in the Northern Region, and after listening to this discussion, we must all have been impressed by the need to get the economy moving again; that is the only fundamental solution of all the individual problems with which we are now trying to deal. A number of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the need for co-ordination between Departments in dealing with the area's problems; so often the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
Transport has been mentioned, and I must confess that I have a certain sympathy with a moving towards a more competent closely-knit and effective railway system, and I am quite willing to face the fact that it will cause some social pain. On the other hand, I see no reason for contracting a system when one wants to get employment moving and industry expanding, and provide facilities to attract new industries to the area. Therefore, when the future of the railways in the area is being considered I hope that general industrial development will also be borne very much in mind.
The same is true of roads. On Tees-side, we have been awaiting authorisation of improvements to the A.19. Not only would they greatly facilitate the flow of traffic through Stockton, which


is congested, but they would also facilitate the transport of very large engineering products which cannot go by railway but must go by road and are not encouraging firms to expand on Tees-side.
The airport and other things that have been mentioned and the need for this also and for the other transport improvements must be looked at together. I quite agree that we should not be depressed about the North-East, but I see no point in having such a debate as this unless we face up to the problems. I greatly enjoyed the remarks of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), but while there is a place for salesmanship in the North-East there is also a time and place for the serious consideration of its problems, and one cannot get away from them by pretending that they do not exist.
I also agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said about the need for the North to adapt itself to changing circumstances—a view repeated from this side. On the other hand, we must not be a prisoner of circumstances. We must believe that we can play some part in ensuring changes which cause a minimum of pain and inconvenience.
When, not very long ago, I was elected to this House, I was naive enough to say to an hon. Friend that I would telephone the Board of Trade and ask to be sent a copy of its forecast for the economic and social development of Tees-side in the next five years. My hon. Friend looked at me and showed his surprise. He said, "You have not been here a long time. You will learn." At that point I realised that one could not do this. It is incredible that it is not possible to get on to the Board of Trade and say, "Please send me your forecast for the development of this area, how the engineering industries are expected to expand, how the chemical industries are expected to expand, changes in the distributive trades, and changes in the demand for skilled and unskilled labour."This would not be asking for a plan. It would be asking merely for a forecast of expected development. I see no reason why this could not be done.
Of course there would be an element of conjecture. Of course a number of firms would find it difficult to give an indication of their intentions. They would say, "It is dependent upon overall economic policy. It is dependent on whether we enter the Common Market. It is dependent on the international situation". All these factors could be taken account of if an economic and social survey were undertaken.

Mr. Proudfoot: I am interested in this point, because most hon. Members opposite when they are given a figure of jobs in a pipeline just do not believe it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman would do with this forecast.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the difference between discussing jobs in a pipeline and trying to forecast industrial development in one industry or another industry or over a geographical area.

Mr. Proudfoot: I budget for sales in my grocery business. I understand forecasting.

Mr. Rodgers: I should think that the hon. Gentleman is a bad grocer if he could not tell me the demands he expects for his products and what he expects in the way of capital investment over the next five years. I ask for no more than this from the Government. It is a reasonable request. It is not a request to plan to a Government who do not like planning. It is merely a request to the Government to collect information which ought to be available to any individual, whether he be a member of the House, whether he be an industrialist, or whether he be a trade union leader, who attempts to look into the future.
We have had a good debate today. I hope that it will have important and desirable consequences for the North-East. I am a comparative newcomer to the area, but I strongly support all that has been said by my hon. Friends about the attractiveness of the area, about the people there, and about its tremendous potentialities. It is for this reason, because it has so much to offer and so much deserves prosperity, that I should like to see the Government do something to help it in its present difficult position.

2.43 a.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers), and I cannot help wondering what was in the back of your mind in keeping us in store for the smallest hours of the night. Perhaps it had a certain skeleton in the cupboard significance for hon. Members on the Government Front Bench. I want to press on as quickly as possible and detain hon. Members with nothing but the bare bones of an argument.
We have heard talk of the staple industries in the North-East. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) mentioned coal, steel and shipbuilding. To understand the situation we must add two others to those—chemicals and the construction industry.
We have heard a great deal, and rightly so, about the difficulties of the coal industry. The House may well feel that what has been said today and on previous occasions in the House has been abundantly worth while. I do not claim that the figures that are quoted are a full measure of the social problems involved in the contraction of coal mining, but it is a striking fact that over the country as a whole the unemployment of former miners is less than 1 per cent. of the mining industry.
This is the more surprising because it is in such marked contrast to the steel industry which has a very different record of labour relations and a very different approach to labour problems. This industry, too, is faced with difficult times but, taking the country as a whole, unemployment in iron and steel is about 5 per cent. and its problems are no greater than those of the coal industry. There is a difference in the approach to labour and a difference in the point of view adopted to industrial enterprise. It is this that we feel most strongly on Tees-side today.
There are 3,000 men from the steel industry unemployed, another 3,000 from the construction industry and another 6,000 from a variety of industries. This House will have an opportunity to debate the situation in the steel industry more fully on Friday this week and I

hope that there will be an opportunity to go into the situation facing the industry more thoroughly.
Part of the problem is due to another North-East industry, shipbuilding. There we have had talk of labour difficulties, demarcation troubles and restrictive practices. This House would be doing a grave injustice to many union members and officers if it did not realise that there are in those unions people who are very well aware of those difficulties who are working very hard in their branches and district committees to sort out these problems in great detail in their places of work. We do a great disservice by continually harping on these troubles as if they were the sole cause of our industrial difficulties.

Mr. P. Williams: Will the hon. Member (recognise that some of us on this side of the House who take an interest in shipbuilding, and some hon. Members opposite, say that the main difficulty rests on the shoulders of management?

Dr. Bray: I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that. I was concerned recently in a wage negotiation, or rather its outcome, where the increase was granted on condition that the unions co-operated in the improvement of productivity, just as vague as that. At a meeting held to discuss how the unions could co-operate in increasing productivity I ventured the suggestion that there might be some restrictive practices at the place of work which might be discussed. There was an embarrassed silence all round the meeting. No one could suggest a restrictive practice that was restricting productivity, yet that had been made a condition of the wage concession.
I move on to a subject which has not yet been explored in this debate. We are facing in the chemical and the steel industries on Tees-side what I think is an acute situation. No one could describe those as obsolete or declining industries. The chemical industry on the south side of the Tees is still investing about £1 million a month and the steel industry is expanding.
The elaborations of the universal beam mill at Dorman Long's are continuing, but whereas there is on the I.C.I. site at Wilton about £10,000 investment per man, in the planned extensions now


going on the capital per extra man employed is in the region of £50,000 to £100,000. In other words, the increases of plant capacity are not producing appreciable increases in employment. This is in new plant, not in the modification or replacement of old plant where of course the investment tends to reduce demand for labour as at Billingham.
In steel this process has been even more violent. We had mention earlier tonight of the Nos. 1 and 2 mills at the Britannia Works of Doorman Long. The hon. Member fox Cleveland (Mr. Proud-foot) referred to them as the wooden mangle. That is true enough. I suggest, however, that had the steel industry had the kind of social research division which the Coal Board has and had it adopted the approach to joint consultation which is used in the mining industry those Nos. 1 and 2 mills would have been taken off five years ago and the new universal beam mill would have been brought up to full capacity much more quickly to replace that old and obsolete capacity at a time suitable to the labour market.
As it is, on Tees-side there is still no consultation between the major employers between Donman Long and I.C.I. The reason for this is the history of I.C.I, moving into the area, "pinching" in the view of Dorman Long all its stilled labour and the refusal to discuss labour demands at the highest level between the firms. In the result, both firms have made their peak demands on the labour market in the same years regularly since the war and have dropped off in their demands. Consequently, we have the figure of 6,000 unemployed in the affected industries on Tees-side.
Increasing automation and mechanisation and the increase of scale which is going on in industry is something the economic effects of which one notices only considerably alter the technical development itself is stale news. Everybody read about the beam mill at Dorman's five or ten years ago, but it is only now that its impact is being felt on the labour market. This will be true of future advances in automation.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will shrug off the economic implications because it will point to

developments which have already taken place but which have not yet shown an effect. That is because the effect is still coming. Engineers and technologists are always over-optimistic in the timing of the results of their work but they are always over-cautious in estimating the final effect. It is this final effect which is overtaking us on Tees-side today.
We are not a backward area; quite the opposite. It is because we are, perhaps, the most intensive area of capital investment in the country that we are suffering unemployment. We are in this sense the most advanced area in the country. It is most important to realise the new nature of the problems which are arising. It means that there must be a much greater watch on the rate of construction.
This industry has 3,000 men unemployed on Tees-side. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) referred to the possibility of using these men in meeting the social needs of his area, in housing—and, indeed, there is a terrifiic backlog in housing need on Tees-side. It remains true, however, that for all its advanced progressiveness, Tees-side is still a one-sided area. It lacks variety of employment, it does not have good consumer goods industries and the national interest certainly requires that the full resources of the North-East in general, including Tees-side, should be used.
And so we come to ask what can be done. It is helpful to distinguish the short-term from the long-term problem. Immediately, the problem is to make effective use of the labour that is available to diminish unemployment. The prospect is that the unemployment situation will get worse. If the Board of Trade carried out locally the kind of inquiry which the Federation of British Industries carries out for the economy as a whole and conducted a brief informal questionnaire-type survey of the heads of industrial firms on Tees-side, it would discover that there is the prospect of increasing unemployment in the area.
The question arises, "Is this area unbalanced and can one do anything about it? In other words, is it all unskilled labour and is there no skilled labour


available?" I do not think this is true, because there is in fact a great deal of hidden skilled labour available, of disguised redundancy, in firms which have been unwilling to lay off skilled men until absolutely the last moment, and there are very considerable reserves available even among fitters and electricians on Tees-side for any developments which are launched in the immediate future
If that is what is available I think that we must say first that the situation in steel does need urgent attention from the Government. There is talk among economists of steel stocking and the question of commodity stabilisation schemes. Surely a Government with any intellectual vigour left in them can face the financial situation such as we have in steel today and tackle this problem of recession in demand and the reduction of steel stocks? I am sure that there are members of the Government who appreciate the need for this. I should like to think, too, that they were capable of dealing with the problem, and I am sure they wish to deal with the problem.
Then there is, too, the question of rapid increase in the investment programme. I would put first here the overseas projects. It is a little ironical on Tees-side we should be equipped to handle the building up of the infrastructure of not only our own economy but overseas. In India and Africa there is great need for the long-term type of investment programme which we can support and which we are supporting—the new steel mill in India, for instance— and docks and harbour schemes all over the world, and bridge construction. We on Tees-side can cope with a big increase in orders from underdeveloped countries, for which, of course, special development funds are required. It is not going beyond the wit of man to suggest that a certain increase in the generosity of this Government towards financing overseas developments would pay handsome dividends in the whole economy, too.
But there is, too, an immediate need in developing the infrastructure here at home. We should be getting cracking on the modernisation of docks and harbours and in building roads and bridges which not least we need on Tees-side. I think

that here perhaps the Minister of Transport applies the wrong criteria to road improvements. He reckons the number of vehicle hours per £ spent on road improvements he can get in different areas, and the South, by this criterion, always comes out top because it has the greatest total of road traffic at present. If he is concerned with salving the trains-port problem he must realise that money needs to be spent where road improvements will result in a more convenient spread of industry throughout the country.
The importance of communications is shown very clearly by the map of the development district of County Durham. We see the spread on either side of the Great North Road and the main railway line both to the west and to the east. Where transport is good it is much easier to attract industry. This means that improved communications generally in the Narth-East would produce a great improvement in the investment in other industries in the area.
The Board of Trade regional controller estimates that if a real investment programme were launched in the North-East 90 per cent. of the capital expenditure would go directly into increasing the personal incomes of the people in the area. It would have a direct effect on labour in areas where there is an excessive demand for labour at present and no effect on imports except that of increasing incomes in an area where incomes are already gravely depressed among all sections of the community. So there cannot be any national argument against an increased programme of investment for the North-East immediately.
The long-term situation demands the selling of the area. People in the North-East need to realise this. Towns should be made as gay and as tidy as they can be. There is already good progress in this in the development of new town centres, but it needs to go much faster, and it needs a great deal of imagination to push it through on the lines advocated by the Civic Trust. This would certainly do a great deal to liven up our towns in the North-East.
It needs, too, a deliberate attempt to diversify the area in its cultural and human aspects, not simply looking at industry as a merely automatic productive process. I refer here in particular to


the decision of I.C.I. to locate its new central research laboratory dealing with plastics and petro-chemicals, a very important project for the future of our chemical industry, not on Tees-side where three-quarters of the manufacturing capacity in the country for these products is located, but in Cheshire where there is no shortage of this kind of scientific research effort, which breeds in the district around it.
One of the observations of the Toothill Report for Scotland was that the modern science-based industries grow up from a climate of research. This means that we must have a completely balanced industry if we are to retain its future developments. It is a sad loss to Tees-side and to the employees of the chemical industry there that this future development of their work should have been taken out of the area and transferred to the other side of the country where it is not needed in anything like the same way. I think that generally in the problem of the development of the North-East the rest of the country is the main loser in allowing things to continue as they are.
As I have said, circumstances are such that technically and economically we are in many respects ahead in the North-East. But we are less prosperous. I think that if we can redress this the character of the Northerner in all its open warmth and generosity will do a great deal to rectify the rather arrogant, brash, self-satisfied mood into which the country has been led today. I think we see in the North the shape of things to come, not only politically.
In the time that is left to them, the Government would be wise to accept the privilege of assisting the North-East. Since the Toothill Report was written, the Government have been converted to the idea of planning nationally, and in the National Economic Development Council they have a framework for both industrial and regional planning. I think that if they consult the staff of the Council they will acknowledge that the two-fold analysis of economic activity on an industrial basis and on a regional basis is not yet properly represented in its plan of work and that the North-East could very well provide a pilot scheme for the regional planning

which is needed to complement the industry-wise planning on which the North-East Development Council is concentrating at the moment.

3.0 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I think that I am the twenty-seventh speaker in this debate. I am glad to say that I think I have heard everybody who has spoken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had a good debate, Which was occasionally enlivened by exchanges between the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams).
Throughout, there has been expressed a genuine concern about the future of human beings. The fact that the rate of unemployment in the North-East is very nearly double that of the country as a whole has been reflected in most of the speeches. It is true that in the North-East there are pockets of unemployment at over 4 per cent.—in some cases even higher.
I was not as surprised as perhaps a stranger might have been that every one on both sides paid such tribute to the merits of the people of the North-East, because I happened to spend six months as a soldier up there in 1940. In fact, I guarded the south bank of the Tyne, from South Shields to Sunderland exclusive, with 80 gallant men. Little did the inhabitants of Durham realise in what capable hands they were.

Commander Kerans: In 1940, as a naval officer, I was in charge of the anti-parachute defence of the yards of the Tyne.

Mr. Hare: That is very interesting, but my hon. and gallant Friend should listen carelully. I said that I was responsible for the area from South Shields to Sunderland exclusive. I did not cover the yards on Tyneside.
In speeches such as the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), it became clear that the majority of hon. Members want to see not only an expansion of industry in the country as a whole, but an expansion of industry in the North-East,


where the level of unemployment is higher than in most places. AM of us want to see growth. I think that somebody said that we want growth without inflation. I agree.
If we want growth, we have to accept change. It is inevitable that some industries will contract whilst others expand. This means that, in terms of human beings, we must be prepared for redeployment. Thus, human problems automatically come to the fore, and we have to try to deal with them as reasonably and sympathetically as we can.
The coal mining industry, naturally, has occupied a major part in the debate. It is true, as hon. Members (have said, that the process of adapting the industry to the needs of modern conditions means reducing and redeploying its manpower. But it is very important that people should realise that coal mining is not a dying industry. This is more a question of redeployment rather than of contraction in the ordinary sense of the word.
Yet the answer does not lie in the negative policy of keeping open uneconomic pits and thereby imposing on the industry a handicap which it cannot afford. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gaitskell), said in the Scottish debate last week that one could not expect the Coal Board deliberately to produce coal in more expensive, rather than in cheaper, ways. He said:
I do not see how one could justify producing coal where it was more difficult to get it when it could be produced where it was easier to get it".—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 660.]
As a Government we have to do all that we can to assist in the provision of alternative jobs. I want in a moment to discuss in some detail how we can make progress in this field, but I should like, first, to say something about shipbuilding and the iron and steel industry. These were mentioned by at least two speakers. I suppose that hon. Members who have spoken know more than most of the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry. I do not share the view of those prophets of woe who see no future for this great industry, and I hope that hon. Members agree with me. To a large extent it must depend on how

the shipbuilding industry reorganises itself to meet the fierce international competition which it now has to face.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) appeared to think that the sooner men were removed from the pits altogether, and some alternative form of fuel found— to say nothing of alternative jobs—the better it would be. I wonder whether this is not overstating the case. We all want to see the pits mechanised, with the most economic pits being used, and to this end the National Coal Board has, for a fairly considerable period, carried through a substantial number of pit closures.
In the necessary changes the Board has, I think all hon. Members have agreed, made great efforts to cause as little dislocation and hardship as possible to the mien affected. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) and his hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) both paid tribute to the way in which the Coal Board has carried out these changes. It is surely clear that uneconomic pits cannot be allowed to impose a heavy burden on other pits if coal is to compete effectively with oil and all the other sources of power today. Wherever possible, workers who have been displaced have been re-allocated to other jobs within the industry; and, in doing this, the Coal Board has been working An the closest consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers.
Such changes as are to come cannot take place overnight and it will be some years before the process of redeployment is completed. Very real human and social problems are involved—the hon. Member for Blaydon referred to this—and this is especially so where whole communities have depended on coal mining for their livelihood.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) found that a great deal of ship (repairing has come to 'the North-East, thanks to the fact that the ship-repairing yards have proved as competitive as yards on the Continent. Hon. Members know of the considerable modernisation programmes which (have been undertaken in many shipyards. As this is in many ways a human relations debate as well as dealing with other matters in the shipbuilding industry, it is appropriate to express


the wish to see a more up-to-date approach in the use of manpower in that industry. I have myself initiated joint talks between the two sides of the industry on this problem, and I am glad that both employers and trade unions are getting on with these talks.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth and Sunderland, South and the hon. Members for Consett, New-castle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) all referred to a new dead in the shipbuilding industry. I am sure that if employers can give greater security of employment—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that in this the employers must give a lead—and the trade unions in their turn can put an end to demarcation disputes and provide greater flexibility in the use of labour, this will do an immense amount to improve the prosperity of the industry.
Hon. Members will agree that the problems of the iron and steel industry are different. It would be wrong to assume that the present difficulties will continue indefinitely. As a result of the modernisation programme, the steed industry is well placed to take advantage of the revival of demand which is bound to take place. On Friday hon. Members will have the opportunity to discuss this in the debate on the Report of the Iron and Stool Board.
I have mentioned these three industries, but it is important to remember that they employ only one-fifth of the working population of the North-East. There is now a far wider distribution of employment than an impartial observer would imagine after listening to this debate. This is all part of the pattern of change, in which the decline in the numbers employed in the older industries is being offset by the growth in the new industries.

Mr. Stones: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned communities built around pits. Many more people depend on the purchasing power of the miners than those who work in the pits. Does he not agree that although only a fifth of the total working force is employed in the three industries, many more are dependent on their purchasing power?

Mr. Hare: That is a perfectly fair point. I wanted to develop the point that there had been a considerable drive to increase the diversification of industry in the North-East, and that the Government had done a lot to assist in this process. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that the Government have not done enough, but let us admit what they have done. During the ten years 1951 to 1961, industrial development certificates were issued for projects providing 63,000 new jobs. These were not just jobs in the pipeline. They were actually created. Much of the industry introduced has been of the lighter type of which, as hon. Members know, the North-East had comparatively little before the war. I think that a notable example of this is the advent of the radio and electronics industry.
The Government have also made a useful contribution in non-industrial employment. The establishment of the central office of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at Newcastle was an imaginative and sensible step. In the same way, the transfer of the Post Office Savings Division to Durham will eventually result in the provision of 1,000 new clerical jobs in the area represented by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and his neighbours.
What more can the Government do to help? About one-third of the insured population of the North-East is in development districts. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) held up a plan for us to see. We have just made Blaydon a development district and we have restored Prudhoe to the list of districts which qualify for assistance under the Act.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade have been present throughout this debate, and we have all taken to heart the words of wisdom which have been offered to us from both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will do all that he can to encourage new industry to go to the North-East. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth was mildly "pulling the Government's leg" when she talked about jobs in the pipeline. These jobs are not to be


despised. The jobs which matured between 1951 and 1961 were in the pipeline at one time. They are not there now; they are in existence. These 20,000 jobs which are now in the pipeline will come into being, and I do not think that they should be shrugged off.

Dame Irene Ward: When?

Mr. Hare: Within the next few years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth asked for a breakdown of the figures. Perhaps I might give just a few examples: metal manufacturing and metal goods—nearly 2,000; engineering and electrical—over 7,000; clothing and footwear—nearly 3,000; paper, printing and publishing—over 1,500. I will not detain the House with further details.

Mr. Pentland: The right hon. Gentleman gave the net increase between 1951 and 1961. Can he give the migration figures from the County of Durham during the same period? My information is that the figure was 5,000 a year.

Mr. Ainsley: The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the North-East was the hardest hit area in the country. I referred to north-west Durham which has been scheduled for development since the Local Employment Act came into being. What has come into that area to compensate far the closing of the mines and certain other by-product plants? I am not interested in what is in the pipeline, but in what has gone to the area, which is desperately in need of new industries to absorb the present unemployed population.

Mr. Hare: I hope that the House will sympathise a little with me. I have a large number of points to answer and I am sorry that I cannot answer every single one which was put to me.
On the general point, the hon. Member himself gave the figures of migration. Why, therefore, should I give them? I was not trying to be clever. I merely said that these were new jobs created as a result of the issue of industrial development certificates. I was not saying that they were a net addition to jobs in the area.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Com-

mander Kerans) mentioned advance factories. I was interested to hear them say that these could make a useful contribution. I agree. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is very much aware of the part which suitably placed advance factories can play in providing—and stimulating—employment. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is not now present knows, the advance factory at South Shields has just been let. I am glad to be able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend has decided to put up two more advance factories in the North-East, one in County Durham and the other in Northumberland. Their precise location has not yet been decided, but in reaching his decision my right hon. Friend will have in mind both the employment needs of the area and the likelihood of the location being attractive to industry. As my right hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told the House on 21st June, we are considering now whether, in view of experience gained so far, more advance factories should be made available.
A great deal of comment has been rightly made in the debate about training. As men are switched into the growing industries in the North-East, we must see that there are adequate numbers of men trained in the new skills required. Here my own Ministry has a major part to play. As far as adults are concerned, as my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 11th July when speaking about the coal industry in Scotland, we are ready to expand the Government vocational training scheme not only in Scotland but also in the North-East. As I announced myself on the same day, I am increasing considerably the allowances paid to men undergoing training.
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Boyden), my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and others quite rightly brought out the question of the young. The general position of school leavers is not too bad. In the first six months of 1962 nearly 800 more boys entered apprenticeships in the North-East than in the same period last year. The proportion of boys obtaining apprenticeship was 39 per cent. This is 5 per cent. better than the figure for the


country as a whole, and much the same as the figure for the region in the corresponding period last year, which was itself an improvement on the previous year. This is in spite of the increase in the number of school leavers.
But, as was perfectly rightly brought out in debate, the employment and training of young people in the North-East does represent a serious problem. The famous "bulge" is now right on us and we can expect the number of school leavers to be one-third higher in the North-East this year than it was last year. So far these young people have not been entering employment as quickly as school leavers last year or as quickly as school leavers in other parts of the country. I share the concern felt about this. But we must keep it in perspective. I know that this will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Durham who referred to this subject, as did the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough).
The vast majority of young people have been entering employment without too great difficulty. For example, at Easter this year 12,000 young people left school, which was 4,000 more than last year. Yet by the middle of July, of those 12,000, all but 475 were at work. In other words, within three months, 96 per cent. had entered their first jobs.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) and for Consett pointed out that the bulk of those 475— they are mainly boys—are living in localities where there are particular difficulties. These are the coal mining areas of north-west Durham, mid-Durham and Wearside. These boys present a very special problem.
The House will know about the existing first-year apprenticeship classes for boys who have already been taken on by employers as apprentices. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth expressed interest in this matter, as did the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. I am now considering the possibility of providing for boys in these particular areas a first-year apprenticeship course without requiring that they must first have been taken on by an employer. This would be an entirely new departure and would be based on a recognition of the very exceptional circumstances which at present exist in these particular areas.
But to secure more adult training as well as the success of the new proposals that I have in mind for apprenticeship, I shall require the co-operation of both sides of industry, and in particular of the trade unions. Unless the trade unions are willing to accept more adult trainees into skilled employment, and to recognise the year's course that I have in mind for boys as counting for the first year of apprenticeship, it will be very difficult for me to make any headway. I am proposing to discuss these matters with some of the union leaders this week.
The hon. Members for Sunderland, North, and Chester-le-Street, the right hon. Member for South Shields, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools referred to the possibility of increasing the demand for Durham coal by building a new power station in County Durham. The immediate difficulty, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said in the House the other day, is that with the completion of the new power station at Blyth local demand in the North-East should be adequately met for some years ahead. Because of the high cost of building these new transmission lines it would appear to be uneconomic to construct a new power station in Durham now in order to export electricity to other parts of the country. But my right hon. Friend has asked the Central Electricity Generating Board how it made its estimates of potential demand and whether all sources of increased demand had been adequately taken into account. I think it was the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street who mentioned that point. I cannot go any further than that at the moment. What I can say is that the possibility of a further power station in Durham at some future date has most certainly not been ruled out.
I have tried to suggest in the short time available that it would be wrong to draw from present difficulties the conclusion that the North-East is in any way a declining area without a future. I think that the very character of the people who live in that area makes that a truism, and certainly that feeling was expressed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Popplewell: We have listened very attentively to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and we are all


extremely interested in his observations, but he has not yet touched on the main point. There are still migrating from the North-East between 14,000 and 15,000 people a year. In the last 10 years we have lost 86,000 people, who have gone to the South and the Midlands. What is the Minister doing to stop that, and to attract our people back again?

Mr. Hare: I have, I hope, covered a good deal of that ground. I have talked about the advance factories, and I have said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is determined to encourage new industry to go to the area. We have to keep this matter very much in perspective, and I would again remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition said on 19th July. He said:
Let us have no more talk about direction of labour and direction of industry. No one has ever proposed this. Of course, we cannot direct labour in peace time, and no one suggests that we can. We cannot direct industry if we mean by that that we compel people to make losses. It is no use thinking in those terms. What we want is something that can be done, namely, to be extremely tough in refusing to allow people to set up in areas of full employment and be extremely generous, if that is the right word, in giving inducements to them to set up in areas like Scotland."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 664.]
I am sure that he would extend the same principle to the North-East. These are all policies that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing.
Let us look at this matter more in a spirit of hope than of despair. I am quite certain that we shall move forward into a period of expansion, based on expanding exports, and without inflation. I am sure that in the process we shall need to see a change in the industrial pattern, if we acre to get the growth that so many of us are determined must be our main objective. In this process the Government's role is to see that change is carried out as painlessly as possible. That is our duty, and we shall certainly carry it out to the best of our ability.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate very much what he has said about the advance factories and the training schemes; that many of us will think those items, in

themselves, make this debate well worth while, but that, in general, we must remain disappointed, and will return to the subject? But does he also realise that everybody who has taken part in the debate would be sorry if I did not thank him for the interest and endurance that he and his colleagues on the Front Bench have shown throughout the debate? We also very much appreciate the pains he has taken, at this late hour of the morning, to reply to the points in the debate.

Orders of the Day — DISARMAMENT

3.33 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am sorry to detain hon. Members, and the staff of the House, at this hour, but this may be the last chance we shall have before the Summer Recess of exploring rather more fully and deeply the subject of our brief debate yesterday afternoon —disarmament. I therefore make no apology for recalling the House from the grave problems of a particular region to a grave problem that concerns the whole of mankind.
The Minister of State gave an expert, factual account of the proceedings at Geneva. It was an interim report, necessarily, and, on the whole, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who thought that the Minister's tone was fairly objective and restrained, and relatively free from the abusive propagandist jargon of the cold war. There were a few vestiges in it, though, of what our friend, Aneurin Bevan, used to call the demonological approach to international affairs: "We are always right, archangels of rectitude; they are always wrong. Everything that goes wrong is their fault."
It is true that the Russians do seem to have been at some points in these negotiations exasperatingly obstinate and suspicious. However in the course of a long talk which I had recently with the principal representative at Geneva of an important neutral nation I received an impression of the Soviet attitude rather different from, rather less pessimistic, than that conveyed by the Minister yesterday afternoon.
Moreover, one should perhaps try, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker)


suggested, to find why they are so suspicious. I do not think, to start with, that the Geneva talks had a particularly auspicious send off with the announcement of the Anglo-American resumption of testing on the very eve of the arrival there of all the delegates. Then, again, I wonder whether a toughening of the Russian attitude last month may not have coincided with, or rather followed very soon after, Mr. McNamara's speech on 16th June. This was, I suppose, the most important speech on defence that has been made anywhere in the world in the last few months. The part of it that most people here picked on, quite naturally, was the passage in which Mr. McNamara attacked the concept of an independent nuclear deterrent, an attack which was embarrassing momentarily to Her Majesty's Government and rather less momentarily to President de Gaulle.
But the more important part of his speech, which has been very largely ignored, is probably the passage in which Mr. McNamara seemed to be announcing a major change in United States defence policy. It is a remarkable thing that this, so far as I can recall, has hardly been mentioned yet in the House, yet practically every well-informed Washington correspondent and defence commentator in the serious reviews has interpreted this passage in Mr. McNamara's speech as a victory for the "counterforce" strategy advocated by the United States Air Force and as a switch from a second-strike to a first-strike nuclear strategy.
If this is the case, this is, indeed, a rather sensational change and since, as we have been repeatedly assured, British nuclear strategy and the Royal Air Force itself are so closely geared to and integrated with American nuclear strategy and policy, we have some right to be told whether Her Majesty's Government interpret Mr. McNamara's speech as all the commentators do, and, if so, whether the Government assented to this important change of policy.
I know that the Joint Under-Secretary, who has been good enough to come here at this late hour to listen to and answer this part of the debate, cannot be expected to reply authoritatively on every detail, but so momentous a change in the whole of our defence policy, if in-

deed I am right in following these commentators, presumably must have been discussed pretty thoroughly at all levels in the various administrations of the past few weeks. I therefore hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to say something on this point.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): So that the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) will not be under any misapprehension, I should say this. I believe that he had words with my hon Friend the Minister of State, who had to leave to go to Geneva tonight and apologised to the hon. Member for not being present in order to hear his intervention on this very important topic of disarmament. I believe my hon. Friend told the hon. Member that he would make sure that someone from the Foreign Office was present who would listen to what he said and my hon. Friend promised that if there were any queries the hon. Member had he would write to him personally. I feel it right to intervene at this juncture to tell the hon. Member that I personally am not prepared to answer these very important questions, particularly the one he has just asked, without preparation.

Mr. Driberg: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his position entirely and I was most grateful to the Minister for troubling to speak to me when hurrying off to Geneva on his very important duties, on which all of us naturally wish him well. In mentioning this particular point, I said that I did not expect an answer on all the various details, but I thought that possibly—precisely because this point is so important—the hon. Gentleman might have heard of it and would know the answer offhand, but if not, of course I accept what he says.
Actually it was as long ago as 6th March, in the defence debate we had on that date, that I quoted the warning of a United States senator that the Americans were apparently building up a first-strike force, and the question which that senator asked, which was
Is a conscious effort to achieve and maintain a first strike nuclear force compatible with serious disarmament discussions?
That is a very important question. It is even more urgently pointed today if the interpretation of the McNamara


speech I have quoted is correct. It is a question which must certainly be asked by those who support the theory of the nuclear deterrent, because of course a first-strike strategy cuts right across that theory. Some at least of those who support the theory of the deterrent have argued that if, as they believe, it is legitimate to have nuclear weapons at all a second-strike strategy is less objectionable and even more justifiable morally than a first-strike strategy since it can of course be described in a sense as defensive. This is one of the arguments used to justify Polaris. It is spoken of as a second-strike, not as a first-strike weapon. But this argument can no longer be used if we or our American allies are going over in the main to a first-strike strategy.
This danger is not as abstract, not as nightmarishly unread, as the scholastic theorising of the Rand Corporation casuists makes it appear. As Mr. Wayland Young wrote last Wednesday in the Guardian, although Mr. McNamara did mot give way completely to Air Force pressure,
he did order the enormous number of 900 Minutemen".
The Minuteman, as hon. Members will be aware, is an intercontinental missile with a range of about 6,300 miles which travels around on specially constructed railway trucks.
He did make General Curtis LeMay, the first-strike theorist whom President Eisenhower had refrained from promoting on seniority in 1958 the head of the Air Force and he did increase the defence budget by $10,000 millions".
It is alarming to consider the pressures to which President Kennedy, for all his genuine good will and desire for peace, is subjected, pressure particularly from the gigantic military-industrial complex which has grown up round the missile industry, much of it located in the electorally important State of California. Nor is the danger less because Mr. McNamara's announcement of the new policy has what one may call a spoonful of jam of it, the humane-sounding declaration that "principal military objectives should be the destruction of the enemy's military forces and not of his civilian population."
That sounds fine until one analyses what it must actually mean: the knocking out of the Soviet intercontinental

missiles before they are actually fired; until one realises also how impossible it would be to use the most massive nuclear weapons to destroy military targets without harming one hair of a single civilian head; and until one considers how improbable it is that the intelligence services responsible for the criminal blunders of the U.2 and Cuba really know the location of all the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile bases or launching pads.
That improbability, combined with Mr. McNamara's speech, which must have seemed in Moscow fairly menacing, just as menacing as the old Dulles doctrine of massive retaliation, of which it is, indeed, a kind of variant, seems to me to be one explanation of such Russian intransigence as has been noticed or late.
Especially on the Consolidated Fund Bill, it is one of the functions of backbench Members of the House to challenge or to query in a Socratic way assumptions that are accepted generally without a moment's reflection. It is astonishing how quickly such assumptions can become sacrosanct axioms. There are quite a number of them always floating around in this nuclear dialogue.
There is the assumption of the necessity of the balance of deterrence, which I asked about in vain in my speech on 6th March, an assumption that might be more impressive if the word "balance" were not so often used, apparently, in exactly the opposite sense to its dictionary sense. For Ministers tell us, "dead-pan", that if the Americans were to lose their lead in the nuclear arms race and if the Russians were to begin to catch up and to close the so-called missile gap—which, we now know, was merely a myth of Presidential election propaganda—this would seriously disturb and not, as one might suppose, restore or establish the so-called balance or equilibrium. In passing, I may remark that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) yesterday afternoon quaintly mixed a metaphor by saying that "we cannot afford to let the balance get out of step."
Another assumption that is accepted unquestioningly is the assumption that on-the-spot verification is vital; that is the word which is usually used.


Is it vital? I wonder. There are, of course, two kinds of verification off inspection at issue. There is the verification of suspected underground nuclear explosions and there is the inspection of zones during the process of disarmament when it starts, as we all hope that it will—possibly in accordance with some such scheme as the Sohn sampling scheme which the Minister mentioned and which I certainly, like many other Members, favour very strongly. I regret very much that the Russians rejected every version of it. I think there is a strong case for regarding this kind of inspection as essential to any serious disarmament scheme. But one can just see that the Russians, faced with a first-strike strategy, may think that the inspecting teams could be looking for the location of their missile launching pads. Moreover, from what the Minister of State himself said earlier in the debate, when he spoke yesterday evening, it occurs to me that this kind of inspection might in some ways be not so much vital as futile. The Minister of State said that, for instance, nuclear warheads are very small objects, tiny little things which can easily be stored away or concealed. Surely, in the absence of mutual confidence, which one would indeed hope had begun to grow up a bit by this stage if disarmament had actually begun, how could any zone, however limited, be inspected and cleared with absolute certainty? A dozen of these tiny little nuclear warheads might have been hidden away anywhere—in some farmhouse kitchen cupboard, or attic. How could one ever be sure?
As for the other kind of verification, on-site verification to inspect nuclear underground tests, it is now common form that almost all of these can be detected and located by national means of detection. The project Gnome, which hon. Members may have seen a report of, which, after some difficulty, I managed to get a copy into the Library— the Gnome project disproved completely the theories of the more ferocious American nuclear pundits like Dr. Edward Teller. It is also common form that, except perhaps for the trigger devices mentioned by the Minister, underground tests are very much less important militarily than atmospheric tests,

and those certainly can be detected and located.
There are really risks either way. There are risks if we do not verify, obviously. I must concede that. On the other hand, the greater risk seems to me to be the continuation of the nuclear arms race. These are, in a sense, the alternative risks. I would also say—I rather wish that the Minister had had time to deal with this—I would also say, especially having talked with this neutral diplomat to whom I referred earlier in this speech, that there is rather less difference than is sometimes suggested between verification by invitation and verification as of right, since, after all, even if verification as of right were conceded as a principle, the inspecting team would still have to ask for an invitation or have to be sent an invitation: nobody can just walk straight into another nation's territory without making any of the arrangements for facilities, and so on. I think that this gap has been to some extent exaggerated.
The Minister of State assured us that there is on the part of the Government a genuine desire to reduce tension. I hope that this is so. I hope also that there is some sense of urgency. After all, while the negotiators talk, the tests go on, and the imminence of a further series of Soviet tests is contemplated, apparently almost with equanimity. After that series, we are told, will be the time for a test ban treaty to be signed. What assurance is there at this moment that the Americans will not then say "Ah! But, after all, these latest Russian tests must have given them some considerable new bits of know-how. We suspect that they have gained some important advances. Now we must just have one more series of tests", and that the vicious circle will not go on?
I hope that hon. Members will not think it unduly sentimental of me if I refer to a point that I have raised repeatedly at Question Time—the question of the biological damage caused by these tests. Calculations of the approximate extent of this damage, though difficult, are not impossible. There was the very substantial report of a United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation which was produced in 1958, which—with the


greatest caution, of course, and in the most tentative way—essayed actual figures. So it is not impossible.
Moreover, the Prime Minister told us when he announced the resumption of testing that all the pros and cons of it had been weighed very carefully before it was decided to take this grievous decision and go ahead with the tests. I maintain that he had no right to take that decision and go ahead with the tests unless in that balance sheet of pros and cons he had at any rate some approximate figures of the biological damage—if he did not know roughly how many new cases of bone cancer and leukemia would be likely to be caused by the series of tests, how many cases of genetic damage, and so on. Yet at Question Time he has repeatedly dodged answering Questions on this point.
Yesterday afternoon at Question Time hon. Members were rightly concerned and indignant because a number of babies have been born, and are being born, deformed as a result of the marketing of a drug that had not been adequately tested in advance. Yet this, deplorable as it is, was at least accidental. Many more thousands of babies are going to be born deformed or idiot as a result of the deliberate decision of the British and American Governments. The Prime Minister and the President have agreed that it is in the public interest that x hundred thousand people— innocent people who have not been consulted about it—should die agonisingly of bone cancer or leukemia. This is surely an extreme example of the doctrine that the end justifies the means.
The former Minister of Defence wrote me a letter—I was exchanging some correspondence with him about the matter—saying that, regrettable as all this human suffering is, it is part of the price that we have to pay to secure the defence of the free world.
Everyone will agree that a good and desirable end justifies the use of some means, perhaps means unpleasant or violent. The classic doctrine of the just war is a case in point. But can any end, however good, justify this peculiarly horrible and indiscriminate form of genocide? This, the consequences of the testing alone, quite apart from the use, is what makes nuclear weapons utterly

different in kind, not only in degree, from all other weapons and makes some of us say that, whatever other nations may do, these are weapons that it is absolutely impermissible for us to have, to test, or to threaten to use.
One particularly disturbing aspect of this controversy is that the Prime Minister seems to have, no doubt unwittingly, misled the House when he gave us to understand that only real necessity could have induced President Kennedy and himself to resume testing. We were repeatedly assured that because the Russians' autumn series of tests had made certain, or might have made certain, advances which might lead them forward to further advances and so on and so forth, it was absolutely necessary to preserve this so-called balance of the deterrent by starting our tests again.
What we did not know when we debated this matter on 6th March was that the strongest evidence that the resumption of testing was not necessary at all had already been provided from a most unexpected source—again, Mr. McNamara himself—only a week or two before the announcement of the resumption of tests.
On 25th January, he was testifying before the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in the Committee's hearing on military posture. Again, if any hon. Member cares to turn up the verbatim record of this hearing, he will find Mr. McNamara's testimony. He will also find, incidentally, that the record has been censored considerably for security reasons, which is quite comprehensible, and this is why the publication of it and its arrival here were delayed, so that we could not have known about it when we had the defence debate.
I will just, if I may, quote a few sentences which illustrate my point that Mr. McNamara definitely said that testing which was about to be resumed at that time was not fully necessary or essential. He was being interrogated by a Representative from Massachusetts, Mr. Bates.
MR. BATES. I would like to go back to this question of nuclear testing. And I would like to get an assessment of the importance that you attach to it from a military point of view.
SECRETARY MCNAMARA. [Deleted.]
MR. BATES. I don't want to play on words, but you used the words 'desirability' and ' advantage.' I would like you to express it


more on terms of criticalness. Does it hit that area or is it merely desirable? That is what I am trying to get at.
SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I would say it is desirable.
MR. BATES. YOU don't think it is a grave matter of concern?
SECRETARY MCNAMARA. Well it is difficult to say whether it is grave or not. [Statement off the record.] But I am just giving you my personal opinion … I don't know whether I have answered your question fully, but I hope so.
MR. BATES. Well, a little bit differently than I expected. I know about the reasons for the tests. But I don't know of anyone on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy who doesn't think that this is of supreme importance to the survival of the Nation. You don't agree with that?
SECRETARY MCNAMARA. I don't believe that they have considered the power we have if they consider that this is of supreme importance."
Then, a little further on, there is just one other exchange I want to quote because it illustrates the point that I am trying to make. Incidentally, I should say that I make no suggestion that Mr. McNamara was against testing. He was, in fact, in favour of testing simply because he thought on principle that everything should be done to increase American nuclear power. But we were told that we were testing again only because it was essential.
Then Mr. Bates said:
Well, let me put it this way. We had experts come before the committee who went this far. They said unless we conducted these tests, that the balance of power might well shift to the Russians. You don't agree with that statement?
MR. MCNAMARA: I do not."
That disposes of the kind of argument on which testing was sold to the people of America and to Parliament here and to people elsewhere and it is a pity that we were sold that argument which, on the testimony of the American Secretary of Defence himself, is seen to be a phoney argument.
Almost every speaker in yesterday's debate agreed that we must press on to get complete and general disarmament. Of course that is the aim, but I hope that we shall not use the phrase as a sort of rune, and do nothing now because we cannot do everything at once.

The unilateral abandonment of testing— or, better still, a test ban agreement— would be the most valuable first step towards general and complete disarmament. If the negotiators fail through their own fault they will not be forgiven; if they do not achieve agreement through prejudice, or timidity, or irritability, or because they did not try hard enough, they will be haunted throughout their lives by the ghosts of the innocent victims of the cancerous plagues that they have failed to check.

Orders of the Day — THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

4.8 a.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I am sorry to keep the House, but I wish to raise a matter that is one which should attract the attention of the Government.
Perhaps it is significant that this question is being raised at this hour of the morning for it was the time at which, very often, those engaged in the horrific acts of the crime of genocide called at the doorstep of innocent men, women, and children, deprived them of their liberty, and took them away without anybody knowing. They were taken to torture chambers and, ultimately, to concentration camps. Those who committed these crimes killed with impunity millions of people. So perhaps it is appropriate that we should discuss this subject at this time of the day.
I was very disturbed when I read the reply which was given, after many years of consideration by the Government, on the question of accession to the Convention on Genocide. The man who introduced the term "genocide," Dr. Raphael Lemkin, had lost all his relatives in concentration camps; his whole family had been wiped out. I believe that there were very many of them. Dr. Lemkin was determined to introduce a preventive measure which would make it impossible for similar barbaric acts to occur in the future.
The words used by Mr. W. J. Dignam, the Australian representative at the General Assembly in 1948, ought to be very carefully considered when we are dealing with this subject. He said:
Neither animals nor uneducated savages would deliberately plan with the fiendish and cold-blooded cruelty which accompanies


modern examples of genocide. Hardened soldiers, accustomed to the callousness and brutalities of war, were overwhelmed when they witnessed for the first time the physical deterioration of some of those victims still living after this crime had been perpetrated against them.
This applied to the cold-blooded extermination of millions of people. It is difficult to speak on the subject without emotion. I recall raising these matters in the House before the last war, when there was a civil administration in Germany and when the Nazis first reared their ugly heads. I made statements in the House which I knew to be true but which I feared were so full of horrific facts that they would not be believed. I had met many victims who had suffered and who had come over here to explain, in secret, what was happening. I knew that these atrocities were taking place, but it was not within my power, nor that of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who also spoke on these matters, to convince the House that something must be done to prevent the outrages against civilisation which otherwise would inevitably follow from the preaching of the doctrine of Nazism.
Only a few days ago we had in Britain the amazing spectacle of people declaring themselves to be Nazis and saying that Hitler, the arch-criminal, the high priest of the doctrine of torture, murder and destruction, was a man whose policy we should be proud to follow. It seams incredible that this brutal, subhuman principle should be accepted. I do not know how anyone can explain this strange abnormality. These men disturb the peace of Trafalgar Square, and innocent men and women who seek peaceful enjoyment there are subjected to vicious attacks on their conscience. How can we expect ex-Service men, or men and women who have been in concentration camps, in particular, to listen to these violent attacks on their moral and mental outlook and do nothing about it? They would have to be superhuman. I do not think that flesh and blood can stand it. Yet these Nazis are coming into our squares and again preaching Hitler's doctrines, and which everyone now knows advocated and led to genocide.
Let us face that fact. This is not a matter of putting forward a principle

of a political nature. It is not a political doctrine, and this is where the hon. Gentleman and I will probably be at variance with each other. In my contention, and in the contention of 65 nations—nay, in the contention of all the nations in the United Nations because it was accepted without a single dissentient—the Convention correctly states categorically that this is not a political matter. It is a crime against humanity.
I hope that the time will come—and in the not too distant future—when we shall all realise that doctrines of this nature cannot be called political doctrines. How can they be? Would we willingly allow a set of murderers or advocates of murder to join forces and come into our squares and streets to preach the doctrine of murder? Of course we would not, but that is precisely what is happening, and that is why those of us who have taken an interest in the subject of preventing genocide and have seen it going through its various stages—the Declaration, and later the Convention, and now the stage of waiting for the Government to accede to it—are horrified at the thought that excuses are being sought, not for putting the Convention into effect, but for refusing to accede to it.
What is the problem? There is an article which enables a Government or country to introduce modifications if it wishes to do so. It is about thirteen years since this matter was first discussed, and I have raised it on a number of occasions during the past twelve years. The Government have not sought ways and means of modifying the Convention, if modification was necessary, although a procedure is provided for doing that. If we accede to it we shall be in a position to modify it in some form which will enable us to overcome any doubts that we may have in regard even to putting into effect the point of view held, in my view wrongly, by the Government. We have not taken advantage of that, nor, indeed, does it appear that we are proposing to do so.
The Government made a statement condemning genocide, and suppose that we ought to be grateful to them—if gratitude is the right sentiment in these circumstances. In reply to a Question which I asked, the Government strongly condemned the act of genocide and all


connected with it and declared themselves in accord with the sentiments of those who desired to outlaw it and with their objectives, but—and this is the crux of the difficulty—they sought to avoid the natural consequences of these statements by saying that they could not accede to the Convention because
the effect of Article VII is that, if we acceded to the Convention, it would be necessary to amend the Extradition Acts so as to suspend extradition for a political offence in any case where the crime alleged was genocide itself as defined in Article 11 of the Convention, or any of the related offences described in Article III.
I do not understand this contention. The term "genocide" is clear. It says categorically that it is a crime against a race. There is no doubt about its being a crime. It is a crime, and that is the end of the matter in so far as definition and approach are concerned. If it is a crime and is so acknowledged to be and condemned accordingly, how can the Government be heard to say that if the crime of genocide is committed there is a political reason for avoiding extradition? I do not understand this argument.
If a murder is committed, the person responsible is extradited. If a man has been an accessory to murder, we are in a position to extradite him. If he contemplates or advocates murder, it is clear that no question of politics comes into it, but if a set of people adopt mass murder as their principle, with no political significance by way of civil war or anything of that sort, and devote themselves to advocating murder, and torture preceding murder, there seems to be some difficulty, according to the Government, about the question of extradition because it might be a political matter.
This will not do. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole question and to look at it from the point of view of what they themselves declare they believe to be the position. The quotation I made earlier ends with the words:
The Government are satisfied also that, should a person accused of such a crime committed elsewhere be found in this country, he could and would—subject to the observations which I made earlier about the possibility of its being a 'political offence'—be dealt with in the same way as any other fugitive criminal." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 423–4.]

But how can genocide be a political offence? I repeat, how can one regard the advocacy of murder of that nature as being associated with the term "political", respectable or not in its connotation?
The fact is that it is an instigation to destroy human beings and is followed by such destruction. After what we have experienced, it is no good people who commit genocide whether principals or followers pretending that they did not intend to do so. I remember that years ago books were distributed in this country by the Nazis in three languages purporting to be a combination of declarations by Jewish people and others that not a hair of anybody's head had been or would be touched. This vicious, lying propaganda is being circulated today in precise terms by those who are advocating genocide and who are pretending that they do not intend the inevitable consequences of their preachings. I do not understand why we cannot avail ourselves of Article VI, which reads:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those ' Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
I know what the answer probably will be, that there is no such court, and the International Court has no power in criminal matters. But why not let us take a lead in putting this right? We have nothing to fear. We as a nation are a democratic nation.
I may be told that we should not bother our heads too much about this, because if a crime of this nature is committed it will obviously be punished. I am not so sure about that. I am not so sure that those brutes who stand up and utilise the same language that the Nazis used, and are themselves declared Nazis, are not committing the crime of genocide. According to Article III, the crime includes
Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; complicity in genocide.
Why do we not accept the Convention and then let the International Court or some other court of an international nature deal with the question of whether genocide is proved or not?
I know of the Government's anxiety, of course. I assume that I shall be told that genocide may not have been committed, that somebody may want to extradite someone to some country where he is wanted for another political offence, that the crime has not been proved, and all the rest of it. But here is an opportunity of providing for a proper trial by an independent count. Why should not a person be tried for the offence and, if found guilty, extradited if necessary? I do not think that there is anything in the suggestion which interferes with our present rules relating to extradition. I cannot emphasise too often that this is not a political matter. Genocide is sheer murder and the advocacy of murder.
I listened some time ago to part of the trial in Jerusalem of Eichmann. Nobody could have beard without bursting into tears, as many of us did, the accounts of the horrifying acts which were committed, such as the dashing out of children's brains on pavements. The evidence was not contested by the defence. The acts were those of advocates of genocide. The "high priest" of genocide, Hitler, is today being eulogised in the highest terms by his present-day followers, who use every device to mislead crowds in the streets and to spread their venomous doctrines.
Now is the time, of all times, when the Government should endeavour to do something definite about this. We are looked upon by the rest of the world as leaders on moral principles, in moral and political issues. What are the 65 nations, which have accepted this Convention, including members of our own Commonwealth, going to say to us if we refuse to accede to the Convention? Everybody knows that wherever one goes in the world people look upon our country as still being well in the forefront in advocating and practising on moral issues. How can we expect those 65 nations—including our own closest allies and friends and intimate connections—to regard us with anything but disrespect when we do not accept what they have accepted, and what their legal authorities obviously have told them is in order, but, instead, make some kind of legal excuse?
I know very well that the Joint Under-Secretary, and his colleagues at the Foreign Office, and other Ministers are deeply distressed and really understand what a shocking thing this crime of genocide is, but rather than finding excuses for not acceding, I beg them to reconsider the matter so that our real status on such a moral issue may be high, so that we may continue to be respected, and so that other nations cannot say, "You are looking for an excuse rather than finding a method by which you can put into effect something of the highest importance to the welfare of the world."
The people who are affected need us. Do not let us misunderstand the situation. Those who have been affected by crimes of genocide and who, by God's mercy, are still alive, always regard us as being their protectors against that kind of thing. I ask the forgiveness of the House for having taken, perhaps, too much time at this hour, but I appeal to the Government to reconsider the matter, and not to make a statement tonight which closes the door on accession to the Convention.

4.32 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): Perhaps I can begin by quoting the be-ginning of the statement which my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT when he made his announcement on 18th July that Her Majesty's Government had decided not to accede to the Genocide Convention. The statement begins:
Her Majesty's Government fully accept the spirit of the Genocide Convention and wholeheartedly support its objects but, after long and earnest consideration, and with great regret, they have reached the conclusion that the United Kingdom should not accede to it.
Before I explain why Her Majesty's Government took that decision, I should like to say that I fully understand, and sympathise with, the disappointment of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir B. Janner), at the outcome of that decision, but I am sure that he, for his part, will understand and accept that Her Majesty's Government would never have decided against accession to a Convention aimed at outlawing such an odious crime without the most thorough and searching examination of


the whole question. We would never have come to this decision had we not been finally convinced that the arguments against accession outweighed those in favour of it.
My right hon. Friend's statement also contained these words:
In making known their decision not to accede to the Convention the Government wish to reaffirm their utter abhorrence of the crime of genocide and their determination that those who commit it should be brought to justice, and to give an unqualified assurance that Her Majesty's Government would never themselves violate the principles embodied in the Convention ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 423.]
When the House last debated this question,, I explained at some length the difficulty that had hitherto prevented this and previous Governments, including that of the party opposite, from acceding to this Convention. The hon. Gentleman said then that he understood the legal difficulties, but he expressed the view that after eleven years they should have been resolved. I promised that we should press on with our considerations of the matter and that the House would be informed as soon as a decision had been taken.
In considering this question there are a number of aspects to be borne in mind. One is the effect accession to the Convention might have in relation to offences which might be committed in this country. Thus is a matter which the hon. Gentleman referred to at some length. Although genocide as such is not a criminal offence in this country, inasmuch as the word "genocide" does mot appear on the Statute Book, most of the offences which are within the definition of genocide in the Convention are. If, as is hardly conceivable, any such crime as is usually connoted by the term "genocide" were committed in the United Kingdom, the perpetrator could and would be punished under the ordinary criminal law. Moreover, if a person accused of such a crime committed outside Britain were to be found in this country he could and would be dealt with in the same way as any other fugitive criminal, subject only to the possibility of it being a political offence as explained in the statement which was circulated by my right hon. Friend.
This leads me to the practical point on which the whole matter turns, namely,

the obligation which accession to the Convention might impose upon us in respect of genocide committed abroad. It is settled principle that the United Kingdom will not become a party to a Convention unless she can fully accept the legally binding obligations which she will assume by becoming a party to it. This means that, unless we can carry out the provisions of the Convention to the letter under our domestic law, legislation must be introduced in order to make quite certain that once we have become a party we shall be able to carry out its provisions. This is the background to the Whole problem.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained in the statement last Wednesday, the reason for Her Majesty's Government's decision stems from Article VII of the Convention, which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I should Like to read it for the record.
The Article reads as follows:
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
It is the interpretation of this Article that has been the main obstacle to accession for successive Governments in this country. The question that had to be decided was this: would it be necessary if the United Kingdom decided to become a party to the Convention to amend the Extradition Act, 1870, to provide that an offence of genocide should not be regarded as an offence of a political character and by so doing to limit the traditional right of this country to grant political asylum?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were advised—and it was mentioned in the statement of the Lord Privy Seal— that the effect of Article VII is that if we acceded to the Convention it would be necessary to amend the Extradition Act so as to suspend the operation of the safeguard against extradition for a political offence in any case where the crime alleged was genocide itself as defined by Article II of the Convention or any of the related offences described in Article III.
Article II says:
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole


or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group "—
That is a simple one—
(b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
I can understand that that may be capable of definition within the ambit of British law and possibly we could absorb that into the criminal code, but Article III goes further. It says:
The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide ".

I mention this because I think that the hon. Member, as a lawyer, will accept that Articles I and II have a somewhat vague terminology. He will accept, will he not, that, under Article III (c), if, in the heat of a political speech, a coloured man in Africa said, "Kill all the whites" he would have committed an act which was incitement to commit genocide?

Sir B. Janner: The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat there. The point is that the incitement to genocide would not depend upon a statement of that nature inasmuch as it was not intended that that should incite people to kill. I think that he is giving a very extreme example of an occasional statement made by an individual. Statements by individuals that they believe in and advocate Nazism, which means killing, is something very different. I do not think that there is this difficulty.

Mr. Thomas: I am quoting an example:
Direct and public incitement to commit genocide
is, in fact, a punishable offence under Article III. Anybody who had committed that crime could not in fact, even

if he were doing it in a political speech, under this Convention claim the right of asylum in a country which was a contracting party. I mention that as an example of the difficulty there is in this crime of genocide.
In those circumstances, it is felt that acceptance of the Convention and the enactment of legislation to make our domestic law conform to the provisions of it would involve a derogation from this country's traditional right to grant political asylum which the Government do not think it right to accept.
The hon. Member asked: could there ever be any circumstances in which this country would wish to grant political asylum to a person accused of genocide within the terms of the Convention? I should say that, genocide being what it is, one cannot ignore the possibility that, for example, offences committed by one racial or other group against another group during political disturbance or civil war, committed by both sides, might afterwards form the subject of an application for the surrender of a fugitive on a charge of genocide.
In such circumstances, it is possible that the authorities in this country would rightly take the view that the offence was of a political character. For this reason, Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to deprive themselves in all circumstances of their traditional right to grant an accused person the protection of the Extradition Act against surrender for a political offence where the charge is one of genocide as defined in the wide and, in some respects, imprecise terms of the Convention.
I repeat that it is with great regret that we have reached this decision, but, in view of the importance that we attach to this country's traditional right to grant asylum to political refugees who seek refuge here, we cannot derogate from that right.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March. 1963, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing.]

4.46 a.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Although it is almost five o'clock in the morning, it is only fitting that this year, when the Royal Hospital School commemorates the 250th anniversary of its foundation, we should spend a little time discussing the accounts that are before us. I am only sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is not present with us tonight to take part in this debate. I am sure that he would not have been inhibited by the hour and that his speech would not have been curtailed because of the hour. Unfortunately, my hon. and gallant Friend is not well. I am sure that everybody wishes him a speedy recovery and looks forward to hearing him again in our naval debates.
Before coming to the question of the Royal Hospital School itself, there are one or two questions and matters that I should like to raise on the accounts. On the expenditure side, the biggest increase is in connection with the Royal Hospital School itself, the estimated increase for this year being over £15,000. That is an interesting comment on the policies of the Government, because these increases are due to the increased cost of heating, lighting, provisions, clothing, bedding, stores, stationery, books and things of that kind.
A large part of the increase, however, is due to increases in salaries and wages. I do not know whether there is any increase in the number of teachers, but the increase is almost 10 per cent., which seems to me to be a peculiar commentary on the Government's policy of fixing or, at least, of pointing out that the percentage increase this year should be 2½ per cent. I am not against this increase for teachers at the Greenwich Hospital School, but it certainly does not appear to be in accordance with the Government's policy. Perhaps the Minister might say something about that.
There is one new expenditure, and that is for machinery replacement. I do not quite understand what machinery replacement means, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something about that.
There is also an increase in the hospital pensions to seamen and marines, and in connection with this I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could say something about the kind of pension which is being paid now. The basis of the payment of pension was altered some few years ago. It would be interesting to know what the amounts are, because prior to that some of the pensions were really quite ridiculous. One wonders what the justification is for them, whether it really is worth while carrying on in this way.
I have a case here of an old shipmate of mine who had twenty-six years' pensionable service, twenty-three years of which were as a chief petty officer. His Greenwich pension from age 55 is the very princely sum of 2s. 11d. per week. I am bound to say that pensions of that kind cause one to ask what, in fact, is happening now. This pension was payable under the old codes. I think that other Members besides myself would like to have some knowledge of the kind of pensions which are paid at present.
On the income side, there is a considerable drop in the income on loans. I do not quite understand that. It is a very considerable drop, almost £9,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say something about that. The other items, in the main, show increases. In so far as they are the result of good administration we should like to congratulate the Governors upon them. There is the increase, too, in the fees, which I shall have something to say about later. Fees were introduced in 1957, and ever since they have been increasing, until this year the estimated income from fees is £61,000, which is a very considerable sum.
During our last debate, which was two years ago, we asked the hon. Gentleman, if I remember correctly, to make another approach to the Minister of Education to see whether the grant from the Ministry of Education could be increased, and I think that I suggested during that debate—I have not


checked this—that the hon. Gentleman ought also to approach the Secretary of State for Scotland as there were Scottish boys in the school and I thought that some grant ought to be paid by the Secretary of State. In any case, the sum still remains at £4,000, and this does seem very small in view of the very generous treatment the Government afforded to private fee-paying schools, at least in Scotland, when they were affected as a result of the change-over to the general grant system. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman did approach the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. If he did, he does not appear to have had much success, because the sum is still very much the same.
Two years ago the hon. Gentleman told us that the estimated income from the sale of timber—this was from 1960 —would be during the next thirty-five years, about £600,000, as a result of which I certainly expected that this figure would be increasing fairly rapidly towards £15,000, £16,000, £17,000, £18,000, £19,000, or £20,000. It does not seem to have gone up very much since the time the hon. Gentleman informed us that this was what was expected. Maybe the hon. Gentleman could say something about that. Perhaps he could say on what it is expected to spend the increased income—extra pensions for the ex-Service men or the hospital itself.
I now want to say something about the school. Since the introduction of fee-paying and since the school was opened to sons of officers. we have repeatedly expressed fear that it would become a fee-paying public school used mainly by sons of officers. We have asked a number of Questions to discover what is happening. It seems that our fears are slowly being realised. The number of sons of officers entering has increased. Two years ago the hon. Gentleman was pleased to be able to tell us that the number had fallen to 29 and compared it with 43 in the previous year. The figure for 1959 was very low indeed. This year we have had the highest number ever—53.
If we group the last three years, including that very low year, and compare them with the previous three years,

we find that there has been an increase in the number of sons of officers entering. The percentage increase is much greater than that shown by the actual increase in numbers. The increase in 1959–61 is 299 per cent., and for the previous three years it was 23·9 per cent. From this it looks very much as if the school is becoming increasingly one for sons of officers. That is not what the school was started for 250 years ago.

Sir John Maitland: I hope to speak in a few moments and I may be able to answer that point.

Mr. Willis: The answer will be that on the foundation of the school there were no restrictions, that it was for sons of ratings and officers; but the fact is that for well over a century the sons of officers did not go there.
The number of orphans at the school has fallen since our last debate in 1960, and since then the number of children for whom the fees are paid wholly by their parents has increased. In other words, the number of orphans—for whom this school was primarily intended—has declined in the last two years.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): That is understandable. With the end of a period following a war in which there were many casualties, obviously there will be fewer children at this or any other school whose parents are dead as a result of the war.

Mr. Willis: I agree, but there are still quite a number of children whose mothers die. Mothers die whether there is a war or not. In an institution like the Navy, there are casualties in peacetime as well. I know that there is a tendency for orphans not to require the same attention as they did in the past because of the growth of the Welfare State. I have had experience of that myself in dealing with orphaned children. In spite of this, I still believe that there are probably far more orphaned children of naval men who could be accommodated at this school than are there now.
There are fewer orphaned children and more sons of officers and more children for whom the fees are being


wholly paid by parents themselves. That seems to indicate that there is a growing away from the original purpose of the school, and it is a very serious matter.
Two years ago, the Civil Lord promised us that he would publish a fuller statement this year. I do not know whether this publication is supposed to fulfil that promise, but we are all pleased to have read it, although it is a little tendentious.
It says that in 1957, rising costs made it necessary to introduce modest fees, payable according to the means of the parents. Bust £100 a year is not a modest fee to a seaman. I doubt whether any lower deck rating would consider it modest.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Any lower deck raiting would get it paid entirely by education allowances from the Navy.

Mr. Willis: That may well be, but he certainly would not consider it a modest sum. To talk about it as such is to look at it from the point of view of someone to whom £100 per year is modest, and not from the point of view of one to whom it is probably quite a large amount. After add, quite a number of first-class schools in Scotland have fees below that.
From the evidence gathered from numerous questions asked of the hon. Gentleman in the past few weeks, it would appear that this school is becoming what we feared that it would become, a fee-paying school increasingly devoted to serving or meeting the needs of officers. If that is happening, it is deplorable. It might be argued, of course, that the increase in this figure is very slight. Of course, these things do not happen in a year or two; they happen over a period of, say, forty, fifty, or sixty years.
In fact, almost all the so-called public schools—not all, but a great number— started off as charitable organisations for the children of the poor, while today very few of the children of the poor ever have the opportunity of seeing inside them. It would be a great tragedy if this school developed along those lines; but the tendency is there and anyone examining the facts of the past few years must be concerned about this tendency. My hon. Friends and I will continue to watch this and we shall want

a much fuller debate than is possible this morning and a much more clear undertaking about What is to happen to the school itself if this tendency does continue to develop.
Having said that, I do not wish to detract in any way from the value of the work which has been done at the school. By and large, with a few rather doubtful periods, the school has done a good job of work. The staff has done a very good job and we express our appreciation of that work; but we ought to be given a firm undertaking about the future of this school before we finish our debate today.

5.7 a.m.

Sir John Maitland: Even although it is early in the morning, I would tell the House of my reason for being interested in this school. For the last fifteen years I have been a member of its management committee, appointed by this House, and of all the odd jobs which Parliament throws up, I can say that this particular work gives me more pleasure than any other I have had to do.
I have tried to set one principle before me in doing this work and that is, that whatever school one is concerned with— and particularly if it is a charitable school—one has no right to have a school which does not offer as good or better service and opportunities than any other school. It is an out-of-date, old-fashioned, and deplorable idea that one can run any school on lines which are not equal to those which a child can get in any other form of school.
When I first went on this committee I found it to be a most curious school, the most curious I had ever seen. It was, frankly, a low-grade school. I say that deliberately, because it is difficult to explain what it was, but, perhaps, I think, it was because it was a London school transported into the country. It had devoted men working there, but they were London teachers, transported into the country. It was decided to accept my proposition that we should allow officers' sons to qualify if, in all other respects, they were suitable.
I think that that was the right thing to do. I believe in equality of opportunity, and if we have something to offer, it should be offered to all and sundry.


I believe that, socially, it is extremely good to mix people from different homes, and that is why the inclusion of officers' sons in such a school is a good thing. It would not have been a good thing had it excluded other boys who, under the terms of our charter, should have been entitled to places. If there is a boy in need of care and suffering hardship who ought to come to us at the school, then he should not be excluded by any other boy, whether an officer's son or not. Those are the lines on which we have worked.
I remind the ban. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the school was not started as a charity school. For 130 years it was largely an officers' school, described rather snobbishly as for the sons of gentlemen and officers. It was not the sort of school which it has become since and is now—for the sons of ail. About a third of the officers in the Navy have come from the lower deck, which is a good thing, and many of them were boys at the school. Have they not a right to send their sons to the school? Why should they be excluded?

Mr. Willis: I do not suggest the exclusion of officers' children, but if they keep on increasing in number there will be fewer lower-deck children, and I do not think that that would be right.

Sir J. Maitland: I take the point, but I am sure that the hon. Member agrees that if the places are not taken up, it is wrong to exclude officers' sons.

Mr. Willis: Why are they not taken up?

Sir J. Maitland: Because since the war we have so improved the country's educational facilities that many mothers and fathers send their children to other schools instead of to this school.

Mr. Willis: Why do not officers send their children to those schools if the conditions have been so much improved?

Sir J. Maitland: Some of them do, but others send them to this school, sometimes for sentimental reasons and also because one of the school's objects is to train boys for the Navy. The school is quite different from when I first went there. We have grammar school streams, and I am proud of the school's record.

The Minister knows that at the time I was opposed to the introduction of fees. I think that the decision to introduce them was a pity. It changes the position of a school, and I deplore it. But if we are to give these children a first-class education—and we are doing so—it costs a lot of money. If that money is taken out of the fund, it reduces the amount available for the other functions. There is a difficult choice. I understand the difficulty which the committee faced; they had to stick to the principle which I stated of ensuring that the school was the best school possible and to have fee-paying arrangements or they had to reduce the standard—and I think that they should not reduce it.
As for approaching the Ministry of Education, handly a meeting of the committee passes without us thinking of a new and ingenious method of trying to get extra money from that Department. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we miss no opportunity to try to improve our position from any source. We think of all sorts of ways of doing this, and we have been able to raise money from outside to help us carry out the work of providing these boys with the best education that we can possibly give them.

5.15 a.m.

Dr. Horace King: The hon. Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) and I have taken part in many education debates, and we both have a warm affection for the Navy. When he was talking about equal opportunities for the sons of officers, I thought of the words of the Gilbert and Sullivan song:
scorn not the nobly born, the well-connected 
and the passionate plea that was made to remember that we may get as true hearts in Belgrave Square as in the lowly air of Seven Dials.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we do not want to distinguish between children of different social groups. All children are children, and some day we shall in this country 'have an educational system which recognises that all children have a right to equality of opportunity and the best kind of education for which they are fitted.
The Royal Hospital School at Holbrook is the only school in England


which has to face the ordeal of an annual Parliamentary debate. It is the only school in the country that has to face an annual public inspection. As an old headmaster, I feel some regret that this should be so. There are, however, historic reasons for it, and, indeed, there will be political reasons until we have solved the problem with which we are dealing tonight.
I begin by congratulating the school on what it has done for poor children since it was founded in 1820, and particularly on the quality and character of the work that it has been doing since the war in a building and setting which I think are unequalled by any other school in the country. Certainly, most of the illustrious public schools would exchange buildings with the school that we are discussing tonight. It is set in spacious grounds almost beyond imagination—vaster than most school grounds.
If then we have critical debates, they are not critical either of the headmaster or of his staff, and certainly not of the boys at the school. I am a governor of many schools and I ask the hon. Member for Horncastle to convey to his fellow-governors of the schools the satisfaction and esteem in which both sides of the House hold it.
The 250-year old charity on which the Greenwich Hospital Foundation—its pensions to seamen and its school for seamen's children—is based came chiefly from the confiscated property of the Roman Catholic rebel Earl Derwent-water, executed after the 1715 Rebellion, and I am sometimes surprised that the Catholics have not staked a claim for education at this school. The foundation goes back even a few years previous to that, to William and Mary, and I want to read from the charter the aim of the foundation. It was for
the relief and support of seamen … who, by reason of age, wounds or other disabilities shall be incapable of further service at sea, and be unable to maintain themselves, and for the sustentation of the widows and the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such service, and also for the further relief and encouragement of seamen and improvement of navigation.
If the hon. Member is right—I doubt it— that for a century the school was reserved for officers' children, it was a

betrayal of the charter for a hundred years.
I said that most of the money came from the estate of the Earl of Derwent-water, after the corrupt jobbers of Walpole's régime had had their own pickings. It is that property which provides roughly £300,000 out of the £400,000 which we are now discussing. Even in this brief historical reference it would be ungenerous not to call the attention of the House to the generosity of the late Mr. G. S. Reade, whose life was saved by the Royal Navy in the First World War, who bequeathed the magnificent site of 850 acres to the school. Indeed, it is true to say that without this gift of land the foundation itself could not carry on the school to the degree to which it is being carried on today. I pay tribute to what it is doing for 1,000 seamen who deserve well of their country and who are receiving pensions from roughly one-third of the foundation's annual income.
The school itself is an excellent boarding school. As I have pointed out in an earlier debate, for a number of years it was the only truly public public school in the country. Incidentally, as the Admiralty spokesman stated in 1956, it is a comprehensive school, like Eton and Harrow. Back in 1956 the present Government—if we can call the present changed personnel the Government of that day—took a retrograde step. It is ironic to think that while some of us were nibbling away at class entry into Dartmouth, Cranwell and Sandhurst, and whilst the Minister himself, in one capacity, was broadening the method of entry into Dartmouth, at the same time the Admiralty was taking away from this school its finest feature—the fact that it was a free secondary school.
It introduced fee-paying in 1956 and fixed the fee at £72 a year—now £100 a year. The income last year from fees was £60,000 and the number of boys 650 so that the average fee paid by a boy at school was £90. The Civil Lord was quite right to intervene in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to say that poor boys are still helped. Ninety-five boys have their full fees paid by the local education authorities and 291 have their full fees met by the Royal Navy, but only after a means test.

Mr, Orr-Ewing: No, there is not a means test for the second category which the hon. Member mentioned. The education allowance is not subject to means test. If a child is at a boarding school he receives the allowance.

Dr. King: This again illustrates the paradoxical position of the Minister. In one capacity he has introduced a means test into the school. In another, he sees that Royal Navy parents do not undergo it. The Royal Navy does not impose a means test, but the local authorities do. The local authorities pay only part of the fees of 96 of the boys and their parents pay the rest. For 93 boys of the school, however, the parents have to pay full fees.
It is true, in spite of what my hon. Friend said about school fees in Scotland being less than £100 a year, that the £100 a year that anybody pays, even if he pays the full fees, is less than one-third of the cost of educating any boy at this school each year. Even those who are paying £100 a year are being subsidised by the foundation to the extent of £244 a year. The cost of educating a boy last year was £344.
I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). It was rather sad that when we debated this matter in July, 1956, he was ill and was unable to speak. I know that he has been storing up a mass of explosive material for tonight's debate and that he had fully intended to scuttle the Government, but we have learned with regret today that he is in hospital again. We miss his vigour and eloquence in this debate. No other hon. Member serves his old school and the Royal Navy more faithfully.
When the debate took place in July, 1956, my hon. Friends the Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who was then leading for us on education, and the rest of us protested at what we rightly regarded as the thin end of a very bad wedge. My hon. Friend who opened the debate tonight expressed the same anxieties in a similar debate in 1960. The facts and figures that I have given, that nearly 100 boys there pay their full fees, or what we regard as their full fees, with another 60 boys paying a portion of their fees, suggest that

the character of the school is changing from what it was in 1956. If this process is not checked, the school will ultimately become a school in which the dominant element will be fee paying. Up to 1956 it was a school where poor boys had the advantage of a boarding school education and where all attended a free school. It is now a school where over a quarter of the school population are paying fees.
May I say at once that that makes no difference to boys inside the school. There are no social differences inside a school. There are no snobberies, social or intellectual, inside any good school. But to me there is only one criterion for admission to a school, and that is the fitness of the pupils to profit by the kind of education that is given there. In this school we must, of necessity, add another criterion for the foundation's sake. The pupils must be children of seamen who died, or are disabled, or are old, or need help in other ways, with priority for the sons of sailors who have died. That priority was established as far back as 1865. It is referred to in the debates of that year, and if there is any doubt as to which of two children shall attend, the priority goes to the child of the seaman who has died. I should imagine —in fact, I am certain—that that priority is still maintained.
But once those two criteria are met I see no reason why we should impose a means test on the parents of the boys. The officers have rights the same as the lower deck hands have rights, and a means test is a disincentive to some in each category. My hon. Friend is right when he pokes fun at the expression "the modest fee of £100." For the bulk of people living in this country to have to face an annual charge of £100 would prevent a parent—and especially a widow—from sending his or her child to the school.
The Government's case has always been that they want the money. It was expected in 1956 that the fees would bring in £7,500 annually; they now bring in £60,000 a year—but at least half of that money is provided by local education authorities and by the Royal Navy. I put it to the Government that the rest could easily be found, and morally rightly claimed, by the governors from the Government. For


130 years, all our seamen were docked 6d. a month to make a forced contribution to Greenwich Hospital—I think that it is the earliest contributory pension in British history.
Then, in 1865 Parliament abolished What it called the "merchant seaman's sixpence" and replaced it with an annual grant of £4,000 from the Consolidated Fund. Hon. Members will see from the financial statement that the sum is still £4,000. That is the only contribution that Her Majesty's Government make through Parliament, if we exclude the Royal Navy's subvention of fees, to the charity, and it is that small grant which enables the House to debate the subject each year.
The £4,000 has never been increased. If raised to today's value it would, in my opinion, be enough to pay the difference between—

Sir J. Maitland: We have tried that one.

Dr. King: I am putting the moral claim, and if the Government do not respond to the moral argument I share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's disappointment.

Sir J. Maitland: We tried it with the Labour Government.

Dr. King: Then we two must try again When we get another Labour Government.
At today's value, that sum of £4,000 would at any rate be the equivalent of the difference between what the local authorities and the Royal Navy pay in fees and the amount that the parents have to pay. But I am also worried about the means test scale itself. In 1956, we were told by the Admiralty spokesman that a man with a net income of £6 after the deduction of rent and rates would have to pay £20, and that a widow earning that amount and had one child would pay £10.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that 'those scales have at least been stepped up to match the rising cost of living. A man getting £6 a week net income cannot afford to pay £20 a year, and certainly would be disinclined to send his child to the school, although

I note from the Report that special hardship cases will be looked into. But I want to see this means test abolished, just as I want to see many other educational means tests abolished.
I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is proud of his old school— even if he shows that pride in characteristically strange ways. He is proud that in his day there was no means test. The hon. Member for Horncastle rightly reminds us that poor boys went to the school and, as a result of their education there, finished with Her Majesty's commission in the Royal Navy. Some have risen very high indeed. My hon. and gallant Friend, whom we so much miss from this debate, is a striking example of one poor boy who really owed a lot to his school, and who carried Her Majesty's commission, and served the Royal Navy with great distinction.
I do not believe that we have yet grappled with the egregious anomalies of the class structure of education. There are still different and unequal paths towards the rank of officer for people of two social groups, but we are narrowing the gap every day. It is because we are narrowing it every day that I regret that in 1956 we took a step which may gradually widen the gap in this particular school where no gap existed in 1956. At any rate, I believe that the Royal Hospital School was on fundamentally right lines until the Government switched it off in 1956. We cannot hope to persuade the Government to change that policy tonight, but I hope that the next Government will and that when they do they will have the support of the hon. Member for Horncastle.

5.35 a.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate, even at this very late hour. It is interesting to recall that last year this went through on the nod, but this year hon. Members have been willing to sit up till after 5.30 to discuss what I think is a very important subject and one to which we should devote great attention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, first, on still being in his present position. We are very glad to see him here. He has always given us


a very sympathetic hearing and taken a great interest in all naval matters, especially in answering Questions, which is very important in view of the number of Questions recently asked by some hon. Members opposite.
I appreciate the excellent Report which has been issued. It is very well drawn up; it is simple and direct. I hope that it will be circulated to a great many people, because I have a feeling that many people have no knowledge of this school. Since the Report was printed I have sent it to quite a number of naval families who I Chink will be making application in the future for their boys to go to the school.
I had intended to go into a considerable amount of history, but this has been done by other hon. Members and I will not repeat what they have said. I want to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) to the fact that there are definite categories laid down for entry into the school—sons of seamen with both parents dead; sons of officers with both parents dead; sons of seamen whose fathers' deaths were attributable to Royal Naval service or lifeboat service; sons of officers whose fathers' deaths were attributable to Royal Naval service or lifeboat service, and so on. This is definitely laid down, so it cannot be said that officers' children are getting preference over other children. Boys are taken according to these categories.
I want to ask my hon. Friend whether any boys are refused and whether there is a long waiting list. If there is a long waiting list, how are the boys selected? This is one of the proofs of whether we are taking the right action in admitting these boys. There is still a very great difference of opinion amongst parents as to whether they really want to send their boy to a boarding school. Many people are perhaps not in the circles that are used to sending their children to boarding school. That is gradually changing, but there is a very great difference of opinion still between different sections of the population as to whether it is preferable to educate a child at home or send him to a boarding school. With the increased incomes of many people and the different circles in which they move this attitude may gradually change and

we may find that more ratings' sons are going to boardings school.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) said. It is very beneficial that sons of officers and ratings should be mixed up in education. They will be mixed up in ships later if they join the Navy. Why should they not take their education together? The son of an officer may become a rating in the Navy. He has to make his way up in the same way as everybody else nowadays. I do not think we need be too worried about what is happening at present.
There are 65 boys whose fathers are dead and six whose mothers are dead. In view of the fact that we have not recently had a war in which many have been killed, I think those numbers are rather high.
I was interested in figures given by hon. Members opposite. In view of the fact that we have £23,135 extra money this year, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend how it is to be spent. Some time ago we discussed whether we should give more people smaller pensions or give increased pensions to existing pensioners. I ask my hon. Friend whether any policy decision has been come to on this, as he agreed to look into the question. I presume that the increased expenditure has not been only on teachers' salaries, but has gone to a whole range of staff who have had their pay improved. This would include manual workers, gardeners, and so on. As we can take it that a large range of salaries was concerned, the sum is not very large and we hope all have benefited. I was also interested in the £4,000 more spent on machinery. I should like to be told what that is for.
We have very little knowledge of the careers of boys. When he replies to the debate, perhaps my hon. Friend will say how many take the G.C.E., how many are going into the Navy and what their standard of education is. We learn that two have obtained degrees at Reading, but I should like to have further information about the standard of education and how it compares with that in other schools. Could we be told how many certificates of education they obtain? Only by comparison with other schools can we find the standard.
I have taken a little interest in what I call the humanities of this school. I wish to ask whether anything has been done to improve the rather bleak dormitories. Two years ago I suggested that there should be cubicles for senior boys. As they get older they need some privacy. If it is not possible for them to have separate cabins as there are in a number of schools, I hope wooden partitions will be provided to give some privacy for the older boys.
I was informed that the kitchens were to be improved and I believe that £32,000 was to be spent on that. I should like to know whether that work has been completed and if the kitchens are now up to modern standards. When we had a debate some time ago we felt that the amount spent per head per boy for food was not very much. I know that there is an increase in the height and weight of the boys. Can my hon. Friend assure us that the standard is being kept up? If we could have that assurance we would feel happier about the amount of money spent on food.
I gathered that the hospital was to be done away with as, with modern transport, it was easier to use another hospital. I should like to know what has happened to the equipment, whether it was sold or given to a charity such as the Red Cross.
There are many other points I had intended to raise, but they have been raised by other hon. Members. I end by paying tribute to the headmaster for the work he has done. I think the boys are particularly lucky in having such good buildings and an amazingly good swimming bath, which I am sure gives them tremendous pleasure.
None of the work, however, could have been carried on but for the very good devotion of the staff, not only in the education of the boys and their games, but in ensuring that they are equipped with general knowledge of the world and that their requirements are catered for. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to the Motion.

5.45 a.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I should like to thank those hon. Members who have shown patience and forbearance and stayed to provide a debate which has

lasted just about an hour. At this late hour, however, I hope to keep my reply down to fifteen minutes and hon. Members will, perhaps, excuse me if I reply to some of the points by letter rather than in debate. I should like to add my disappointment that the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is not with us, although I shall enjoy my breakfast more punctually, no doubt, as a result.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) concerned salaries. I can break the figure down. It is true that we have had to lump the sum together to simplify our accounts. It breaks down into salaries and allowances. There is an increase of £11,790 due partly to the Burnham salary increase. The hon. Member will remember that the increase for the teachers was not 2½ per cent., but 14 per cent., or an average of 6·7 per cent. over the years. Most of us on this side, having received up to 100 letters, know these figures. They are inscribed on our hearts rather like Calais was on Mary's.
At the same time, we have increased the teaching staff. We have two extra teachers. This contributes to the extra amount. The figure includes wages as well, and in this connection we have budgeted for an extra P.T. instructor. This is a further reason for the increase.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the machinery allowance. This is a new innovation. We are having argument with the Comptroller and Auditor General about whether it can be allowed in exactly the form which appears in the accounts. We felt, however, that it was right that as we come to replace some of the major machinery in the school—for example, water pumps for the wells and machinery of all sorts— we should, perhaps, have a sinking fund so that we do not suddenly one year encounter a serious breakdown and have to saddle the accounts with a large lump sum. This provision is really in the nature of a reserve or sinking fund to meet those contingencies.
I was asked also about pensions. This is a little difficult to explain briefly. I have a detailed table, but perhaps I may say this. The pensions rate varies. We have 196 officers' pensions at varying rates from £50 to £75 a year. We


have 1,016 Greenwich Hospital special pensions averaging 16s. l0d. per week. Then there are the rather strange Canada pensions which are much lower. This was a form of collection made in Canada in the First World War. They are only £7 12s. a year. That is a historical anomaly and we do not in any way pretend that this pension is related to need. What is rising is the demand for Greenwich Hospital widows' pensions. We are granting 466 of these and they are now at the rate of 15s. a week, or £39 a year. We have increased these pensions, a fact which should have the support of both sides of the House.
I was asked about loans and why the figure was lower. We have taken advice and I am grateful to the three advisers who have helped us—Mr. Peter Daniel, Mr. Ridley and Mr. Guy Macpherson, the brother of a Member of the House, who advise us on our investments. They do this voluntarily and I am grateful for the work they have done. They pointed out that we might with advantage switch from some of these corporation loans to fixed Government loan stock, receiving 5½ per cent., which was a better percentage. We got a very substantial quantity at 84 which now stands at 94. So we have made a substantial increase in capital value and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the income we receive as a result of that switch.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite did ask me about the grant, and, as was said by my hon. Friend who is on the management committee of the school, together with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who apologised for not being present at this late hour, we have made repeated efforts in both the Labour and Conservative Governments to persuade the Ministry of Education and the Treasury to increase this grant, but they say that this is an historical anomaly, and that if they were to aid this school there would be a spate of demands from all sorts of schools which they felt would not be justified, so although we have been as persuasive as we can, we. have not been able to move them to do this.

Dr. King: But there is one difference. This is a State school, which belongs to the Navy, and whose funds are adminis-

tered by Parliament. It is very different from other private schools which might seek help from the Government.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is true that it is administered by the Navy, but I do not think that that makes any difference. It is a charitable foundation deriving income from charitable sources, and the legal advisers of the Treasury have looked at this and have come to the conclusion that if the grant were provided in this case it would be very much more difficult to draw the line between this school and other schools in a similar category.
I come on to the question of fees, which seemed to worry hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here, I think, they have rather split minds, and they have got to make up their minds. If we were to take £61,000 off these fees and the school did not receive this amount, then presumably we should have to gain that money by taking it away from the money granted for pensions. We take pride in the fact that since 1950–51 we were giving additional sums for those pensions, which I have mentioned, of £58,000 a year. In the year 1962–63 we are giving as much as £95,000, an increase from £58,000 to £95,000. If we were to do away with fees as hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested we should have no alternative but to reduce the pensions, which are modest enough and which are going to very needy people. This is the dilemma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) pointed out.
I should like to refute the idea that we should try to make this a lower-deck only school. I welcome the mixing we have got, and I think that it is really welcome, too. to hon. Members opposite. As to the number of officers' sons, or the number of officers applying to have their sons go there, I have had it analysed, and I find the significant fact that 78 per cent. of the officers come from the lower deck themselves, That is interesting. If we ware to ban them, we should have most ridiculous anomalies. If a lower deck rating took a commission we should have to say, "We cannot accept your son for this school." This would be really ridiculous. What would happen if a commission were granted to a man while his son was at the school?


Is he to be taken away because we cannot have the sons of officers? I think that would be too ridiculous to contemplate, as one sees by posing the question.
The hon. Member went on to say 93 out of 660 parents paid fees. That is not a very large percentage out of 660 and 93 parents do pay the fees. I should like to make the point that at this school these fees provide all the clothing and all the shoes and for many outgoings which in grammar schools are paid for by the parents, so £33 6s. 8d. a term is not a very large sum. I think many parents would be willing, certainly when they have seen the school, to furnish the money in order to get the wonderful education that we provide.
We would welcome—perhaps the publicity given to the debate will help —more applications from sons of ratings. We are short of applications at this stage. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport for circulating documents and giving publicity to this matter. All this helps. It is a shame that at the moment there are many ratings who do not like to send their boys away to boarding school, because the mothers miss them, and so on, and it is traditional to have them at local schools. The greater the number of parents who come to know the benefits that boarding school education gives, the more applications we shall get, I am sure.

Mr. Willis: Is it not likely that one of the reasons is that the lower deck still looks upon the Greenwich School as it was, the kind of school that the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) described? Perhaps it is precisely because of that that there is not a keen desire to send children there.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is our object to obtain publicity and get the school known by the lower deck. Frankly, I do not think that many serving on the lower deck today are thinking of the days of 1946. After all, some of them were not born then. We have excellent pamphlets that we distribute widely. We have also succeeded in getting a number of television programmes. There are also A.F.O.s, and so on. All these

things help to publicise the school. Perhaps we can awaken the lower deck to the opportunities which exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle, who apologised for having to leave, endorsed the decisions that we have taken. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, who apologised for having another commitment and could not stay, told me before he left that he fully endorsed all the decisions of the management committee.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that the fees were £7,000 in the first year and have now risen to £61,000. He should remember that they were not retrospective and were applied only as new boys came into the school. They were very modest in the first year and have since been building up. We have not been increasing them. More boys within the fee-paying category have come in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport endorsed the need for extra publicity. I agree with her completely. She asked whether we had been able to increase pensions over a wider field. That is our object. As we have slightly more money, we have devoted 34 per cent. of the total income now to pensions and 66 per cent. to the school. So it is roughly one-third to pensions. We have spread these very widely. Widows are claiming more pensions, and we have raised the amount given to them from 10s. to 15s. per week.
As to careers, I can tell the House what is happening to our boys at the moment. In 1961, 123 boys left the school, and they took up careers roughly as follows: Royal Navy 47, 38 per cent.; merchant navy 13, 10 per cent.; dockyards 10, 8 per cent.; Army and R.A.F. 13, 10 per cent.; civilian careers 32 per cent. Thus, 68 per cent. have chosen a career associated with the sea or the Services.
It is rather a proud boast that yesterday I received notice that we have had our first cadet entry to Sandhurst. We have now had cadet entries to Dartmouth, Cranwell and Sandhurst. The boys are doing well. I have no figures on the number of A-level or O-level passes. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport about that.
We have taken up a point which she nobly made on a previous occasion about humanising the dormitories, and we are altering the house so as to provide studies for the older boys. They have to share—four to a study for the less senior and two to a study for the more senior. We are putting up curtains and partitioning the dormitories to make them less barrack-like and more in accordance with modern thought. We are also modernising the kitchens and we have gained extra classrooms from storerooms. All this has cost £30,000, but it has had a good effect. I also take my hon. Friend's point about hospital equipment. We have gained extra benefit from that.
I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, and I hope that the House will now feel able to agree to the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, for the year ending on 31st March, 1963, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MOTORWAY ROUTE, CRANFORD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hugh Rees.]

6.1 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and to the officials of the House for debating this matter at this early hour of the morning, but it may be the last opportunity I shall have before the Recess, so I feel that I must do so. Though this is only a local issue, it deeply concerns some of my constituents, the Rector and the Parochial Church Council of St. Dunstan's, Cranford, and many others who wish to see that pleasant area unmutilated by the new proposed route of the M.4.
Both because of the hour and because I am grateful to see two hon. Members present who hope to catch your eye, I shall make my case for changing the route through this part of Middlesex as briefly as I can.
The parish church of St. Dunstan's and All Angels is an ancient building of distinction in a uniquely pleasant part of Middlesex. Betjeman's Guide to the English Parish Church describes it as "in a remote situation for Middlesex," and there is an asterisk at the side of the name to indicate that the church is one of outstanding interest and attraction.
When I say that about two-thirds of all the houses built in my constituency have been built since 1930 it will be realised that any delightful rural spot of this kind is doubly precious. It is for these reasons that the local authority, the Hayes and Harlington Council, has tried, wherever possible, to preserve the rustic character of the district.
Some time in 1958, the rector and the representatives of the parochial church council first met engineers from the Ministry of Transport in connection with the proposed route of the new Chiswick—Langley special road. No one who opposes this route opposes the need for additional capacity to assist the traffic on the Great West Road. The issue is whether the proposed route through this part of Middlesex is the best in all the circumstances.
At the time, the rector and his colleagues hoped that the proposed route would be south of the church. He put forward as the reason for this the very vital fact that if the road went north of the church it would go through a very pleasant orchard, which is the immediate ground between the church itself and the first houses of the parish, that it would sever the parish from the church and the church from the people, and that it would also go right through and spoil what is now a very pleasant spot in which the children can freely play. Furthermore, as the road at this spot would be on an embankment, the severance would be much more marked and difficult to overcome. Indeed, the only access to the church would 'be through a subway, 200 ft. long, and this would create a number of difficulties.
Therefore, it was very much hoped that the route chosen would be to the south. There was a public inquiry, at which the parochial church council put its view for a route to the south of the church, and the Hayes and Harlington Council, on balance, favoured that route


not only in support of the views of the parochial church council, but because the northern route means that houses in Bedwell Gardens would have their windows blocked by a large ramp. The council's sewerage problem would be simplified if the route did not cut across the sewers as is now proposed.
There is another road near the proposed route, and that is called Water-splash Lane. This would be unaffected if the southern route was taken, but I have learned only today that one tenant of the cottages in that lane has been given notice to quit because of the proposed northern route so that earlier information that no houses would have to be demolished seems not to have been accurate. This is surely an additional reason for supporting the route to the south of the church.
However, perhaps the weightiest reason of all is that the corporate life of the parish is bound to suffer if there is a great road on an embankment between the church and the rest of the parish. Cranford Park is a delightful place, but has, unfortunately, attracted some undesirable characters and some parents have told me that they will not allow their children into the park or church unless accompanied through the 200 foot subway if this road is built on the proposed route. It would be asking for trouble. That is bound to affect activities such as the Bible class, the Scouts, Guides, and so on, whereas if the route is to the south these difficulties will disappear.
On page 17 of the inspector's report it is stated that a route to the south of the church offered no greater engineering difficulty nor financial cost than would a route to the north. The land to the west is an open space belonging to the same owners as the north route. To the east there are some tennis courts belonging to the B.O.A.C. sports club which would be affected, but if it is a question of taking those rather than severing the church from the parish, then the choice ought to be clear
In any case, I am informed that B.O.A.C. can obtain other land which would more than make up its loss if the road goes by the southern route. The Cranford Park Joint Committee

would object. It no doubt likes the road tucked away behind the church, but I should have thought that, on amenity grounds, it would be better to have this road merged into a longer landscape than pushed right up against the church, with traffic roaring across.
There is one more argument for the southern route and that is that in 1939 the Air Ministry requisitioned the then vicarage. This move was fought by the then rector, the Rev. Maurice Childs, whose name is still thought of with reverence and affection in Cranford as well as in other places. To protect his successor, Section 5 (1) was included in the Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Act, 1939, which states that
The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable acquire and convey to the Rector free of charge a substituted site in the parish of Cranford, approximately three acres in extent … for the erection of a parsonage house with garden attached".
That land was duly conveyed in 1940. No building was possible then. About 1948, when the green light came on for building it became known that this might be the route of a new road, and no building has taken place. The rector has been living for many years in a house totally unsuitable for his parochial work, and now the Minister's new road cuts right through the ground which was conveyed. Surely the Minister is frustrating the deliberate intention of Parliament as expressed in the Act. and the only way in which he could get out of it would be by legislation, which I am precluded from discussing on the Adjournment.
For all these reasons it seems that the southern route is infinitely to be preferred. It is safer for the children, easy of access for the rest of the parishioners and leaves untouched this charming rural spot. It certainly does not cross the intentions of Parliament, it costs no more and it offers no greater engineering difficulties.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that, as everyone has accepted the route, it would be very difficult to change it. He cannot yet say that the route is finally settled because we know that the result of the inquiry on the compulsory purchase


of the land required has not been given. He may not even get the land. There is, therefore, still time to change the decision, and I very much hope that he will do so. A petition was handed into the public inquiry from 574 houses out of the 593 concerned, pleading for the route to the south. For all these reasons I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel that a case has been made out and that there is no reason why the route should not go south of the church to satisfy all the objections which have been raised about the route to the north.

6.12 a.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I have two reasons for intervening briefly in support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). First, he is a constituent of mine, and even at 6.12 a.m. the claims of a constituent are paramount. Secondly, I have had the immense joy of worshipping in the parish church of St. Dunstan's, at Cranford, and I feel very strongly that the proposal which the Minister is supporting would be disastrous to one of the most thriving church communities in this part of Middlesex.
I need add very little to what the hon. Member said. The arguments all seem to me to lead to the route going logically to the south of the church. The only point of disturbance is the B.O.A.C. sports ground, and understand that that can be made up elsewhere with little difficulty. If it goes north of the church, then the church will be separated from its congregation. There can be no doubt about this. It may be said that Christians should not be deterred from going to church by having to go through a tunnel, but, frankly, this is an area of a somewhat dubious reputation. There have been a number of extremely unpleasant incidents, including a murder which took place there about five years ago, and it is natural that both old and young people will not wish to go through a tunnel 200 feet long every time they want to go to church.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. It seems to me that there is a very strong case for altering the line. I hope that he will accede to the hon. Member's wishes and to those of the congregation of this church.

6.14 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: My only excuse for adding a few more words in support of the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is that, like the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), I have known Cranford for some years and have a great affection for the place, the people, and the church, this small and exquisite Renaissance church, greatly enriched in modern times, which stands so surprisingly in this rustic setting only about 12 miles from Hyde Park Corner.
I can confirm everything that has been said by both hon. Members. It would be a real tragedy if this road were to go, as it is proposed, north of the church. It is a great pity that HANSARD is not usually illustrated with maps, because if we could publish the map which my hon. Friend showed me before this debate it would illustrate how logical, how easy, and how just the southern route is. The bit of the B.O.A.C. sports ground that would have to be shaved off is a very tiny bit and could be replaced on adjoining waste ground. That would not be a problem at all, and when that is weighed in the balance against wrecking the corporate life of a flourishing church congregation—that is perhaps putting it a bit strongly—I do not see how the Minister can hesitate.
I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been to the spot, but I wish that he would go there on some fine Sunday morning, about eleven o'clock, and see the people flocking to their church along a charming path through this orchard which he is now proposing to destroy. If he would imagine how different and much less satisfactory it would be if the people had to go through a 200 ft. tunnel, which for reasons already explained, they do not like the prospect of at all, I am sure that he would come round to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, which I support very strongly indeed.

6.17 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) began by apologising for the early hour at which he was raising this matter. Some of us would wish that it


was earlier than it is. But I too must start by apologising to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that neither my right hon. Friend nor my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with whom the hon. Gentleman has hitherto dealt on this matter, are able to be here to reply to the debate. I have done my best to acquaint myself with the past history of this very difficult problem, and I shall now do my best to reply to the criticisms which have been made.
I admit at once that some hardship is really quite inevitable whenever a big new road has to be made through a densely populated area. No matter what line is chosen, there are bound to be interests and individuals who will suffer, just as there will remain a lingering sense of injustice in the minds of the victims of what we call progress. Parliament has always recognised this and has laid down safeguards and procedures which ensure that individuals can make their protests heard and that as far as possible right shall be done.
My task, therefore, is not to pretend that there is no substance in the grievance which the hon. Gentleman has ventilated, but really to show that my right hon. Friend has observed both the spirit and the letter of the law and has acted in the only way that a Minister could properly act in the circumstances of this case.
The hon. Gentleman and those who supported him have stated the case from their point of view, and I should like to state it from that of my right hon. Friend. The motorway that we are discussing is really that section of M.4 which runs from Chiswick to Langley, and it will be clear to the House that the siting of a motorway, particularly one running through a highly developed area like this section of M.4, is an extremely difficult task.
In this case the Ministry's proposals were first published in July, 1958. Before that we had considered with great care the effect that they would have on Cranford. We recognised the attractiveness of Cranford Park, and we were well aware of the great charm of St. Dunstan's Church in this setting. Nevertheless, on balance, we felt that a line running north of St. Dunstan's Church would do the

least harm to Granford Park and to the church.
In coming to this conclusion we were fortified by the opinion of that very important body, my right hon. Friend's independent Advisory Committee on the Landscaping of Trunk Roads. This committee, after inspecting the proposed line for the motorway, as is always done at an early stage of the planning before the draft scheme is published, felt that the Line we proposed to adopt would do the least harm to the amenities of Cranford. We had also consulted Middlesex County Council, Heston and Isleworth Borough Council and Hayes and Harlington Urban District Council and Cranford Park Joint Committee.
In accepting the Ministry's proposal, these authorities were, of course, mindful that the motorway would run between the church and the residential area from which it draws most of its congregation. I understand that some of the congregation use a footpath from Somerville Lane. The councils therefore asked that a subway should be provided under the motorway so that local residents could still use the footpath and to this we readily agreed.
As the House will know, there is a period of three months after the publication of a draft special road scheme in which objections can be lodged. As we have heard, objections were lodged in this case not only by the rector of Cranford but by others, including Brentford and Chiswick Borough Council. My right hon. Friend therefore decided to hold a public inquiry and this was held under an independent inspector in June, 1960. At this inquiry both the rector and his representative put their case fully, and strongly urged that the line should be moved south of the church.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote what the inspector said in his report about the rector's case, because he recommended that the line should remain as proposed by the Ministry. He said:
I sympathise with the objection of the Rector of Cranford and due weight must be attached to the support given to that objection by the Bishop of London. I must, however, with respect, record my regret at the exaggerated language in which that support is given in the Bishop's letter. I cannot accept the statement that the Ministry's proposal"—


and here the inspector quotes from the Bishop's letter—
'would entirely frustrate the arrangements of the pastoral care of the large population north of the church and would make access to the church all but impossible for those on that side of the parish.'
Later, the inspector concluded that
The balance of advantage seems to lie in adhering to the Ministry's line.
In making his final recommendation that the scheme as far as the Buckinghamshire boundary should be made as issued, the inspector also recommended that every reasonable effort should be made to minimise the difficulties stressed by the Rector and the Parochial Church Council of Cranford. He observed that the subway leading to St. Dunstan's should be made as safe and as attractive as possible and be well lit.
The inspector's report was accepted by my right hon. Friend with this recommendation and he made the scheme in October, 1960. In passing, I might say that if the parochial church council would like to know what is proposed for the subway which will lead to the church I am sure that the consulting engineers for the road will be only too pleased to discuss the matter with the council. The inspector also referred to a portion of the rector's glebe land which would have to be acquired for the motorway and he recommended that a reasonably satisfactory equivalent should be given in exchange.
My right hon. Friend is under no statutory obligation to do this, but he has agreed to do his best. A piece of land adjoining the Old Rectory, which the Ministry of Aviation was prepared to convey to the rector, was offered, but I understand that he has turned it down. However, my right hon. Friend is still attempting to fulfil the inspector's recommendation even though, as he said when accepting it, he can give no assurance that it will be possible. Subsequently, the order relating to side roads was made on 19th April this year. As the hon. Member will be aware, provision is made in the Highways Act for challenging the validity of schemes and Orders within six weeks of their making, but in this case no recourse was made to this provision.
To those who criticise my right hon. Friend for the route which this motor

road will take I would say this. His decision, in effect, upholds the original judgment of the engineers who planned the road, a judgment supported by the Middlesex County Council, which was the planning authority for the area, and a judgment which was subsequently upheld by an independent inspector after a public inquiry. On what grounds, therefore, could my right hon. Friend be expected to overrule all this advice?
What we are now required to do is to construct this motorway and to get it open to traffic as soon as possible. We have already had a contract under way for nearly a year for widening the carriageways on the Great West Road so that the piers which will support the viaduct can be erected in the central reserve. We awarded the contract for the viaduct a month ago, and on 26th June we invited tenders for the construction of roadworks passing through Cranford. Tenders for the remaining length will be invited shortly.
All this has been carefully phased so that by 1964 traffic from London to the West will be able to use M.4 from Chiswick to the end of the Maidenhead by-pass. To try to readjust our line, even if we could find a satisfactory alternative, would necessitate publishing a new Order and a fresh set of objections would then be lodged, and very considerable delay would be inevitable.

Mr. Skeffington: As the Minister does not know that he has got the land because we have not had the result of the public inquiry, he may have to do this in any event. This is not a very strong argument, is it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, without being word perfect on technical details, that he will be surprised and concerned if what the hon. Member says is right. The fact is, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that my right hon. Friend is under continuous and tremendous pressure to push ahead with the motorway programme. We are bound to accept the fact that some people are adversely affected in almost every case of a motorway. This would happen whatever line or route is taken. That is something which has to be accepted if we are to have a road system which is capable of dealing with the traffic which we expect in the future.


Frankly, I feel that if we even tried to change the route of M.4 near Cranford with all the attendant delay that would be involved, my right hon. Friend would be criticised, and I think rightly so, for failing in his duty to go ahead and to construct this road now that a valid scheme has been made for it.

Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. and gallant Member asked a rhetorical question—on what grounds could the Minister overrule all this expert advice? —the answer is on the grounds that the political head of a Department is not the slave of his expert advisers and balances their advice against the case made by hon. Members and others.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would have said that the only ground on which a Minister can overrule the finding of an inspector after a public inquiry when it

is in accordance with what has been recommended before is if a new fact comes to light. I appreciate the strength of the case which the hon. Gentleman put, but all that was before the inspector at the time of the public inquiry.

Mr. Skeffington: Even the inspector, in his final report, says that there is no engineering difficulty about the southern route. In view of that, what is the overriding reason for still adhering to the northern route?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It was not suggested in the report that there was an overriding reason. The words of the inspector I have quoted. He found that the balance of advantage lay in adhering to the northern route.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock a.m.